Vote for Creigh Deeds on November 3!

On Sunday, the Washington Post gave Creigh Deeds their endorsement. In and of itself that was not surprising. Indeed, it's exactly what both sides have been expecting. But The Post came out swinging with these words:

A LEGACY of sound policies, coupled with the proximity of the federal government, has partially protected Virginia from the harsh retrenchments that the recession has forced on many states. Yet the commonwealth faces a daunting crisis in the form of a drastic shortfall in transportation funding, measured in the tens of billions of dollars, that threatens future prosperity. If the current campaign for governor has clarified anything, it is that state Sen. R. Creigh Deeds, the Democratic nominee, has the good sense and political courage to maintain the forward-looking policies of the past while addressing the looming challenge of fixing the state's dangerously inadequate roads. The Republican candidate, former attorney general Robert F. McDonnell, offers something different: a blizzard of bogus, unworkable, chimerical proposals, repackaged as new ideas, that crumble on contact with reality. They would do little if anything to build a better transportation system.

There are plenty of reasons why Mr. Deeds is the better choice for governor in the Nov. 3 election. He has stood with Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, the incumbent, and his predecessor, now-Sen. Mark R. Warner, in support of the sane fiscal and budgetary choices that have made the state one of the best-governed and most business-friendly in the nation. Mr. McDonnell has generally spurned those policies, most notably by opposing Mr. Warner's landmark tax package in 2004, which attracted bipartisan support as it boosted public safety and education and protected the state's finances. Mr. Deeds has compiled a moderate record on divisive social issues that reflects Virginia's status as a centrist swing state. Mr. McDonnell has staked out the intolerant terrain on his party's right wing, fighting a culture war that seized his imagination as a law student in the Reagan era.

There are many on the right who think the editorial board's endorsement simply confirms the Washington Post's "left wing bias."

But ask a progressive and he will say nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, we see the Washington Post as solidly centrist, pro-business, often anti-union, and enthusiastic advocates of free trade and globalism policies. But despite the progressives' disagreements with the Washington Post, we have to acknowledge that they have little patience for culture wars that divide people and distract the population from solving the real problems that face us.

The Washington Post, however, acknowledged candidate Bob McDonnell's strong suit: his disciplined campaign, which managed to stay on message; his likable personality, which often displayed graciousness; and his quick wit, which served him well in debates.

As for Mr. McDonnell, he deserves credit for having run a disciplined, focused, policy-oriented campaign. As a candidate, a statewide official and a lawmaker, he has maintained a civil, personable manner. His intellectual agility, even temper and facility with the grit of policy have inspired the respect of colleagues, staffers and rivals. He is a dexterous politician.

Nevertheless, Virginia needs and deserves more than a "dexterous politician" who will remake his image at the drop of the hat and say anything to get elected. We need somebody with the political courage to tell us the truth about what we will need to do to fix our traffic mess, grow the economy, and bring jobs to our commonwealth. Here is the Washington Post's study in contrast on the two candidates. First, here is what they said about Bob McDonnell:

Our differences with him are on questions of policy. The clamor surrounding his graduate dissertation from 1989, in which he disparaged working women, homosexuals, "fornicators" and others of whom he disapproved, has tended to obscure rather than illuminate fair questions about the sort of governor he would make. Based on his 14-year record as a lawmaker -- a record dominated by his focus on incendiary wedge issues -- we worry that Mr. McDonnell's Virginia would be one where abortion rights would be curtailed; where homosexuals would be treated as second-class citizens; where information about birth control would be hidden; and where the line between church and state could get awfully porous. That is a prescription for yesterday's Virginia, not tomorrow's.

Here, meanwhile, is how they portray Deeds

Mr. Deeds has been broadly criticized, not least by stalwarts of his own party, for putting too heavy an emphasis on negative ads about Mr. McDonnell and failing to make an affirmative case for himself. If so, it reflects a failure of campaign strategy and tactics, not a lack of raw material. In fact Mr. Deeds -- a decent, unusually self-effacing man who calls himself "a nobody from nowhere" -- has a compelling life story and an admirable record of achievement as a legislator from rural Bath County.

As we noted in endorsing Mr. Deeds in June's Democratic primary, his record in the legislature ably blended the conservative interests of his constituents with an agenda reflecting the prosperous, politically moderate face of modern-day Virginia. He has been a longtime champion of a more enlightened, bipartisan system of drawing voting districts, a stance to which Mr. McDonnell only recently gravitated. He has played a constructive role in economic development by shaping the Governor's Economic Opportunity Fund, which provides incentives for investors in Virginia, and he has stood for responsible environmental policies, including green jobs and alternative energy research. Despite his rural roots, Mr. Deeds has been ideologically flexible enough to support abortion rights; press for background checks on firearms buyers at gun shows; oppose displaying the Confederate flag on state license plates; and warm to equal rights for homosexuals.

And finally, as the Washington Post reminds us

Mr. Deeds, lagging in the polls, lacks Mr. McDonnell's knack for crisp articulation. But if he has not always been the most adroit advocate for astute policies, that is preferable to Mr. McDonnell's silver-tongued embrace of ideas that would mire Virginia in a traffic-clogged, backward-looking past. Virginians should not confuse Mr. McDonnell's adept oratory for wisdom, nor Mr. Deeds's plain speech for indirection. In fact, it is Mr. Deeds whose ideas hold the promise of a prosperous future.

And that is exactly why you should vote for Creigh Deeds.

If you want to go back to the past and fight the same old culture wars and watch the same old Republican anti-regulatory policies fail again, then by all means vote for the GOP again. But if you want to move forward, grow a prosperous economy, and live in a state that promotes tolerance and moderation, then by all means vote for Creigh Deeds on November 3.

Searching for the Real Bob McDonnell

Interesting discussion among reporters about Bob McDonnell and his credibility problems. This is not from McDonnell's political opponents but from working press, including a reporter from the usually conservative Washington Times.



And apparently the doubts about who is the real Bob McDonnell are starting to take their toll, as this latest poll shows the race tightening. According to this non-partisan Clarus poll, McDonnell now leads Creigh Deeds by only 5 points. According to the poll, McDonnell is at 42 percent to Deeds' 37 percent. Previously, McDonnell led in the double digits, polling as high as 10 or 12 points. So, that's quite a shrinking number with another month and a half to go.

According to this report in Reuters:

McDonnell's margin, at 5 percent, is smaller than it had been in other publicly reported polls conducted between the first week of August and the first week of September, when McDonnell's average lead was 10.2 percent.

In the Clarus poll, Republicans lead in all three statewide races that will be
on the November ballot.

"The McDonnell thesis story has not -- so far -- damaged McDonnell as badly as
Democrats had hoped, but it hasn't left him unscathed, the way many Republicans had hoped," said Ron Faucheux, president of Clarus Research Group.

The story's major impact has been to solidify the Democratic base for Deeds. It has had less impact on independents -- McDonnell beats Deeds by 7 points among them."

A big factor in this election will be Election Day turnout, especially by race," said Faucheux. "If African American turnout approaches the 2008 presidential election levels, it would be a major boost to Deeds' chances."

The major reason for optimism is that the thesis story has indeed energized the Democratic base and it's managed to knock McDonnell off message and make him stumble. The now famous F-bomb heard round the world (ok, around the media) won't really damage McDonnell's chances. It's just a dumb stumble. But it shows that the candidate has been knocked off his game, if only temporarily.

The real key to winning for Democrats is not so much the abortion issue or other social issues but the doubts sown about McDonnell's character, especially his authenticity. That's what the Deeds campaign needs to keep hammering at, not the specific issues but the fact that voters don't really know what this guy stands for because he won't tell them. He won't discuss anything that he even suspects voters don't wish to hear. And that's not an attribute of leadership.

Voters may not believe that abortion, gay rights, or any other social issue is really relevant to them as compared to jobs, education, and transporation. But what is relevant to every voters is whether they can trust the candidate to deliver on his promises. And with Bob McDonnell you just don't know because what you see isn't necessarily what you will get.

Bob McDonnell Taking Virginia Backwards.

Bob McDonnell's Shell Game With Virginia Voters

The media, both old and new, has been lit up like a busy switchboard by Amy Gardner's startling expose of Bob McDonnell in last Sunday's Washington Post. Ever since then, Democrats have been going viral and Republicans have been trying to back pedal, ignore it, distract the public with something else, or worst still, portray McDonnell as the mainstream of Virginia.

No, Bob McDonnell is not in the mainstream of even Republican conservatism in Virginia. But he's playing a dishonest shell game with voters. Here's what he really is - what you'll find if you know which shell to look under.

He's an out there theocrat on the far right of his own party. And his thesis was no academic exercise by an 18 year old, as some Republicans are trying to portray it. Bob McDonnell wrote his now widely reported thesis when he was a 34 year old, just a few years before launching his political career. What he did was lay down a blueprint in that paper, and then he executed it and followed it doggedly until it was time to reinvent himself for a different era. Here's what Andrea Mitchell of CNN has to say:



McDonnell and his fellow travelers are saying don't pay attention to McDonnell's words as a 34 year old grad student, but examine his record in office instead. So, ok, let's do that. Here's an eye popping list of just some of the theocratic positions, completely consistent with his post-grad thesis, that he tried to enact while in the Virginia legislature:

AS GOVERNOR, MCDONNELL WOULD BAN HEALTH CENTERS ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES FROM DISTRIBUTING PLAN B BIRTH CONTROL
2004: McDonnell Voted To Ban College Health Centers From Distributing Plan B Birth Control. The Virginian-Pilotwrote that McDonnell, on February 17, 2004, was one of 52 state House members who voted to pass HB1414, which was a bill sponsored by Delegate Bob Marshall to ban “health centers on college campuses from distributing the morning-after pill.” More specifically, this was a bill to prohibit “state supported colleges from distributing the morning-after pill at their health centers,” wrote AP. (The Virginian-Pilot, 02/18/04, History of HB1414, 2004, and The Associated Press State & Local Wire, 02/16/04)
Deeds Supported Expanding Access To The Morning-After Pill. In 2001 and 2002 Deeds voted to make the morning-after pill available from pharmacists without a prescription. (HB2782, 2001; SB623, 2002)

AS GOVERNOR, MCDONNELL WOULD CLASSIFY SAFE METHODS OF BIRTH CONTROL AS ABORTION AND SUBJECT BIRTH CONTROL TO THE SAME RESTRICTIONS AS ABORTION
2003: McDonnell Voted To Kill A Bill That Would Have Defined “Contraception Not To Constitute Abortion.”Bob McDonnell voted to kill a bill that defined contraception “as the use of any process, device, or method to prevent pregnancy, including steroidal, chemical, physical or barrier, natural or permanent methods for preventing the union of an ovum with the spermatozoon or the subsequent implantation of the fertilized ovum in the uterus.” The bill passed the Senate unanimously. [History of SB1104, 2003]
Deeds Voted to Define Contraception Not To Constitute Abortion. Deeds supported legislation clarifying that contraception does not constitute abortion, subsequently ensuring that restrictions placed on abortion were not placed on legal contraceptives. [History of SB1104, 2003]

AS GOVERNOR, MCDONNELL WOULD ALLOW PHARMACISTS TO DENY LEGAL BIRTH CONTROL TO WOMEN
2001: McDonnell Voted Against Allowing Pharmacists To Dispense Emergency Contraception. In 2001, McDonnell voted against HB2782 in every instance. It was a bill that would have allowed pharmacists or health professionals to dispense emergency contraceptives, much like “pharmacies to dispense immunizations even to persons who are not patients.” The bill would also ensure “that nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians may dispense emergency contraceptives.” [History of HB2782, 2001]
Deeds Voted To Allow Pharmacists To Dispense Emergency Contraception. In 2001, Deeds voted for HB2782, a bill that would have allowed pharmacists or health professionals to dispense emergency contraceptives. [History of HB2782, 2001]

AS GOVERNOR, MCDONNELL WOULD SUBJECT WOMEN TO DEMEANING “INFORMED CONSENT” LAWS
McDonnell Introduced Informed Consent Bills For 4 Consecutive Years As Legislator. As a member of the House of Delegates, Bob McDonnell introduced legislation 4 years in a row for a “requirement that each woman be given, at least 24 hours before the abortion, an explanation of the proposed procedures or protocols; an instruction that she may withdraw her consent at any time prior to the procedure; an offer to speak with the physician who is to perform the abortion; a statement of the probable gestational age of the fetus at the time the procedure is to be performed; and an offer to review printed materials that must be developed by the Department of Health.” McDonnell also introduced a similar piece of legislation in 1997 requiring informed consent and including a $500 fine for non-compliance. (HB1371, 1998; HB2108, 1999; HB1482, 2000; HB2570, 2001 and HB2778, 1997)

Deeds Voted Against McDonnell’s Informed Consent Bills For 4 Consecutive Years As Legislator. As a member of the House of Delegates, Bob McDonnell introduced legislation 4 years in a row for a “requirement that each woman be given, at least 24 hours before the abortion, an explanation of the proposed procedures or protocols; an instruction that she may withdraw her consent at any time prior to the procedure; an offer to speak with the physician who is to perform the abortion; a statement of the probable gestational age of the fetus at the time the procedure is to be performed; and an offer to review printed materials that must be developed by the Department of Health.” McDonnell also introduced a similar piece of legislation in 1997 requiring informed consent and including a $500 fine for non-compliance. Creigh voted against all forms of this legislation and (HB1371, 1998; HB2108, 1999; HB1482, 2000; HB2570, 2001 and HB2778, 1997)

It seems that if you examine McDonnell's record it stands as part of the same radical, theocratic, dominionist philosophy as his thesis. It's cut from the same cloth and its perfectly consistent.

What is inconsistent is his insistence, now, that it was a mere academic exercise of a school boy. But even that is consistent with the kind of stealth campaign he is waging. As Kos points out:

However, a less-noticed passage is potentially more explosive, and could form the foundation of a potent narrative if the Deeds campaign ever gets off its ass and runs a real campaign. Turn to page 55 of the McDonnell thesis:

It is also becoming clear in modern culture that the voting American mainstream is not willing to accept a true pro-family ideologue because as then-Representative Trent Lott (R-MS) observed, "Americans
think of themselves as conservatives; they want government reduced. But in their hearts they are liberals, they want all the goodies coming in. Leadership, however, does not require giving voters what they want, for whimsical and capricious government would result. Republican legislators must exercise independent professional judgment as statesman, to make decisions that are objectively right, and proved effective

Got that? "Leadership" means hiding your "true pro-family" ideology from the voters, who don't want it and aren't willing to accept it, but then governing in that fashion once elected. It is the height of cynicism -- openly violating the trust of the voter by pretending to be something you are not, masking your true intentions from an electorate that would never endorse that agenda with their vote

McDonnell would not be the first radical rightwinger to win an election by painting himself as a moderate and then veering sharply to the extreme right once in office. And in Virginia, governors only serve for one term. That's enough time to do a boatload of damage and never be held accountable by voters afterwards.

But one thing becomes clear. That is that if you take McDonnell at his words and examine his past history, including his record in Virginia, you would find that it is perfectly consistent with his thesis and every thing else he has stood for from the time he studied at Pat Robertson's Regent University until right now. He's a dangerous theocrat willing to fool the public to get in office and enact his religious agenda.

The only way to stop that is to lift up all the shells and look under them. Then, you'll find the real Bob McDonnell. The one who is radical right and wrong for Virginia.

Jeff Schapiro Says Creigh Has Only Begun to Fight

Jeff Schapiro, from the Richmond Times Dispatch, has come up with a video that takes on Bob McDonnell's attempt to rebrand himself as the centrist candidate.


First of all, Schapiro hits the nail on the head that Democrats right now have run out of steam. As he points out, we've been on a winning streak in this commonwealth since 2001. The simple law of averages suggests that eventually, fatigue sets in and you just can't keep it up.


That's why, according to Schapiro, Deeds has finally hit back at McDonnell to rouse his somnolent base. But the abortion issue, according to Schapiro, is only one prong in a multi-pronged attempt to challenge McDonnell's likable, moderate, and easy going image. Well, watch the video because Jeff Schapiro is far better at giving his original political analysis than I am at paraphrasing it.

The Inconvenient Abortion Issue That Keeps Dogging Bob McDonnell

Today's Washington Post reports an interesting difference of opinion on Creigh Deeds' strategy of highlighting Bob McDonnell's opposition to abortion. The Deeds campaign is attempting to call voters' attention to McDonnell's staunch social conservativism. McDonnell, a Pat Robertson ally, has been trying to downplay his positions on abortion and single sex marriage in an attempt to rebrand himself as a moderate. Although Rosalind Helderman and Sandhya Somashekhar, the two Post reporters, question the hazards of bringing up the divisive issue of abortion, some progressives disagree with their assertion that it is a risky strategy.

Ben Tribbett declares flat out that it's time to take on McDonnell on this issue. Ben also points out the obvious, that it's far more risky to fail to motivate your base. And August is exactly the time to do so because that's when your base is actually the only one listening. You want to fire up the activists or they won't be there to knock on doors, or phonebank for you in September and October when everybody else finally begins to pay attention.

Meanwhile, Shaun Kenney, former communications director for the RPV, leading conservative blogger, and very smart political strategist, is claiming, over at Bearing Drift, that Creigh Deeds embracing the issue of abortion is a strategy that will fail. He says:

Convincing women that McDonnell is somehow out of the mainstream on abortion is like one horse bucking a national freight train. Gallup polls are showing Americans to be majority pro-life for the first time in the history of modern polling.

Actually, one Gallup poll did find, back in May, that more than half of Americans self-identified as pro-life. But even if 51 percent termed themselves pro-life, that still means 49 percent do not consider themselves pro-life. Given that there is always a statistical margin of error, this means that nationally the country is divided on the issue, not pro-life by a solid majority. But reading that particular poll was tricky at best, as the New York Times pointed out right after it was released:

In advance of President Obama’s speech at Notre Dame last weekend, Gallup released a poll showing that for the “first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.” This was based on a question that asked respondents if they consider themselves “pro-choice” or “pro-life.” The poll found 51 percent saying they were “pro-life,” up 7 points from a year ago to a new high.

That is a significant change.

But a close look at polls that ask a similar question reveals that responses to this question move around a bit. CNN asked the same question in April, and found the “pro-choice” response ahead by 4 points, but the “pro-life” response was ahead by 5 points a couple of years ago. Fox News polls have found the “pro-life” response ahead, “pro-choice” ahead, and the two tied in various polls throughout the years.

In addition to that ambivalence, the public actually expresses quite a bit of doubt on this divisive issue. In that same Gallup Poll, here's the actual breakdown of the way the respondents, who called themselves pro-life by 51 percent, actually answered specific questions on when abortion should be available: 22 percent said it should always be legal, 23 percent said it should never be legal, and 53 percent said it should be legal in some cases.

That means the most adamant positions were at the margins of both left and right, with the vast majority favoring neither a total ban on nor unlimited access to abortion. Most people seem to be in the middle, understanding that while abortion is tragic, it sometimes is the best of some really terrible choices a woman might have to make. One thing that's certain is that at less than a quarter favoring a total ban on abortion, the true hard right anti-abortion stand of Bob McDonnell, who opposes it even in the case of rape or incest, is definitely not the mainstream position that conservatives like Kenney or Chris Beer, whom he quotes, believe it to be.

And, in fairness, neither is the abortion on demand view a mainstream one. The majority of Americans are troubled by abortion and have a nuanced opinion of it. That, by the way, reflects my own view (in the interest of full disclosure I have to say that although I am basically pro-choice, it is not without great ambivalence).

Having said that, the Washington Post article, although it considers Deeds' strategy to bring the abortion debate into the election a risky one, admits that in Virginia, it could make sense. (The emphasis is mine)

The early statewide pitch by Deeds is a bold gamble that the demographics and politics of Virginia have shifted so quickly and decisively that raising a divisive issue such as abortion, which Republicans attempted to use to their advantage for much of this decade, is now favorable to Democrats. Although advocates on both sides of the issue rank Virginia as one of the more restrictive states on abortion, a Washington Post poll in September found that 60 percent of Virginia voters said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, a number that has not changed significantly in recent years.

The key take home point here is that Republicans indeed used the abortion issue throughout most of the 1990s and earlier, when they thought it gave them the winning advantage. As their most socially conservative candidates began losing elections in the Northern Virginia suburbs, they began downplaying the issue and even objecting when Democrats brought it up. They had no such shyness, though, about using the abortion issue when the state truly was more conservative on the issue.

I also disagree with the Post's assessment that it is risky at all to bring it up. Although the two reporters point out that Mark Warner and Tim Kaine did not make abortion a center piece of their campaigns and David Poisson was quoted in the article as believing it should not be a key issue, I'm not sure that view is the best for this year's campaign, even if it was effective in 2005 and 2001. Here's why.

When Mark Warner ran against Mark Earley, Earley did not try to present himself as moderate on social issues. Further, even though the issue wasn't at the center of the campaign, most voters knew that Warner was the pro-choice candidate, so he never exactly tried to hide his position. Also, back then, fewer Virginians were pro-choice.

Then, when Kaine ran, he actually wasn't pro-choice. At best, he simply believed that he shouldn't impose his personal beliefs on the rest of the state. That was also his position on the death penalty, which he personally opposes but still carries out. He took a principled and consistent position, whether you agree with him or not. He did not impose his personal and religious beliefs on social issues on those who disagreed with him. But he certainly wasn't an impassioned defender of abortion rights either.

By the way, if we're talking about injecting social issues into a campaign, somebody should point out that Jerry Kilgore most certainly attempted to make hay out of Kaine's opposition to the death penalty, although it was never in danger of being repealed. So, it's obvious that Republicans will bring up all sorts of social issues if they sense it will motivate their base, scare the voters, or otherwise work to their advantage.

As for Poisson, he ran for his seat against Dick Black who, as the Post admitted, was "largely defined by his opposition to abortion." In other words, Poisson did not need to bring it up. Dick Black was notorious for his extremism and certainly wasn't trying to present himself as a moderate. There was no question of Black attempting to rebrand himself in that race. So comparing Poisson's winning strategy to this year's gubernatorial race is pretty much an apples and oranges exercise.

In fact, the real issue isn't abortion, it's who is the real Bob McDonnell.

He is now running from his own position, one which he espoused just earlier this year. And Virginia voters deserve to know where he really stands on every issues, including abortion.
Before moderates and progressives in Northern Virginia, the Richmond suburbs, and parts of Virginia Beach vote for him, they deserve to hear where he really stands, not just on abortion but on every issue that affects them.

Make no mistake, I actually agree with Kenney and other Republicans that abortion will not, and should not be the major issue. It would be a mistake to base a whole campaign on one issue, especially now when most people are worried about jobs, the economy, health care, and transportation. Both candidates need to present credible campaign platforms built around solutions to these problems and their plans for the environment, climate change, and energy needs. But abortion is certainly a legitimate issue to talk about.

And so is the candidates' stands on the availability of contraceptives, which to me is even more important. There are some on the right, most notably Ken Cuccinelli, who support bans even on birth control and morning after emergency pills, given to women after rape. Despite the claim that these are abortifacients, the science contradicts that. What those pills do is prevent a fertilized egg from lodging in the womb. They prevent pregnancy. They do not kill fetuses.

The truth is there are other issues that concern the majority of Virginians more than this one does. But as long as some citizens will be affected by abortion and birth control laws, and as long as they are concerned about this, it is a valid issue to be discussed. And voters deserve to know where both candidates stand. That's more than just a campaign strategy. Telling them where you stand is the right thing to do.

Creigh Deed's Victory Speech

I know, you've probably seen it before, but it doesn't hurt to keep it running for maximum exposure, so here's Creigh Deed's victory speech.

Reactions To Last Night's Election Primary

From around the progressive blogosphere, I am seeing remarkably little bitterness, as everybody clamors to publicly declare their support for the newly minted Democratic ticket. The losing candidates were gracious in concession, quickly climbing on board to endorse the winners. It looks like we are determined not to blow the election in November because of hurt feelings and disappointments. That, by the way, is true grace under fire. Thank you to those who didn’t quite make it this time. Your graciousness will be remembered when we win.

As to why Creigh and Jody won, I have some thoughts. The first is that voters, overwhelmingly, and from all regions of Virginia, soundly rejected an agenda that was “too liberal.” As somebody whose banner declares that I have been “proudly liberal since 2005,” that does not upset me. The reason is that I am also a great fan of incrementalism. I never expected to convince the majority of voters to agree with me one hundred percent. I am happy just to further the discussion and win a little bit more acceptance for liberal ideas each time and to slowly push the center back to its real center. For too long, the most hard right elements of the Republican Party have been defining that center and moving it ever rightward. There is now a true left, right, and center in Virginia.

My second reason for not being upset is that I believe that sometimes - ok, lots of times - voters are smarter than bloggers. That doesn’t mean I always agree with the majority because I don’t. But lots of times, the wisdom of the masses does turn out to be more intelligent than that of the ideologues. This is one of those times.

While watching TV this morning, I was struck by some of the exit interviews, where people in Northern Virginia were saying that they were looking for the candidate who would run well across all of Virginia. Democratic voters were making pragmatic decisions in these races. Time and again, they went with the centrist.

The Republicans lost no time, in their reaction, in trying to paint Deeds and Wagner as radical leftists. It won’t stick to them precisely because the real progressives were out there and people already got to evaluate their positions. The primary did exactly its job; it strengthened the winners’ positions.

The Republicans did not trust real voters to choose their candidates because they also know that most Virginians are no more hard right than they are hard left. Virginia voters have shown time and again that they are pragmatic centrists. But the ideologues of their party couldn’t risk losing control or having to compromise their precious conservative principles. And that speaks volumes.

They have been a roadblock in the General Assembly for precisely that reason. They can’t even get along with their own moderates, let alone with any Democrat. For them, it’s impossible to reach across an aisle, even to fellow Republicans, let alone to Democrats in the General Assembly. Their ideas are radical and out of step. And every time they criticize moderates like Creigh Deeds or Jody Wagner, they will make more people more aware of that inconvenient fact.

How will the Democrats run against “sunny” Bob McDonnell, Bill Bolling, and Ken Cuccinelli and win in November? By staying positive, and responding to false charges and negative attacks calmly and with the facts. The fact is Virginia has consistently been named one of the best places to do business. Compared to our neighboring states, our economy has been resilient in very tough economic times - an economic meltdown caused by Republican policies at the national level. This is still Bush’s recession because Obama has only been in office for five months and everybody except the most hard right ideologues realizes he inherited this mess from his predecessor. In fact, even the current budget is Bush’s because it was enacted in October 2008, long before the election. Even the bailouts began under Bush’s watch, orchestrated by Henry Paulson.

Furthermore, the Democrats are not socialists, and the Republican penchant for toxic and inaccurate labeling will hurt them because that too will make them look like extremists. The current economic situation is dire. It can be compared to a person having a sudden and severe heart attack and his doctor stepping in to perform emergency open-heart surgery on him.

Of course, if the patient hadn’t been a hundred pounds overweight; eaten a constant diet of junk food; and persisted in smoking and drinking, he wouldn’t have needed such extreme measures. In fact, the doctor tried to get him to change his habits, lose some weight, and adapt a healthier lifestyle. But the patient persisted until a sudden, severe heart attack landed him in the ER. So, the doctor had to perform radical surgery to save his life.

That’s the situation with our economy. Nobody really believes the government should step in and interfere with businesses, bail out failed banks or auto companies, etc. But we are in a dire situation, where not one or two businesses, but an entire economy, was having a major heart attack and needed radical intervention. We are all scared about the eventual outcome, but doing nothing was simply not an option.

Meanwhile, in a situation where our economic meltdown has taken down half the major international economies, not to mention wrecked other state economies, Virginia remains in decent shape, relatively speaking, due to the hard work of Mark Kaine, Tim Kaine, and Jody Wagner, who had a major share of responsibility for our financial health. And we know Creigh Deeds will govern in that tradition. What does Bob McDonnell have as a legacy? The failed Republican policies of Jim Gilmore, the last GOP governor, who nearly destroyed the commonwealth’s AAA bond rating. In fact, it could be argued that Gilmore’s extreme anti-tax ideology, which nearly wrecked Virginia’s economy, was a harbinger of the GOP economic failure on a national level. Republican ideas have been tried time and again and have failed every time.

Those are the facts that Democrats will run on in November. And the Democrats will win because facts are stubborn things. As stubborn as a rock. In fact, many a Republican ship has foundered on the rock of solid evidence. And those facts will carry us through to victory in November!

Congratulations Creigh and Jody!

UPDATE: MORE WINNERS: The upset of the night was Kaye Kory, who beat long time incumbent Bob Hull by 50.65 to 49.34. Additonally, Mark Keam, whom I endorsed, won by 55 percent of the vote. Unfortunately, Miles Grant did not win his race, but congratulations to Patrick Hope.

I heard the election results on my way home from my Lions Club meeting. I know, I know, I'm a political junkie, so why aren't I hanging out somewhere tabulating returns or celebrating at an election night party? Well, because I am president of my Lions Club (for at least two more meetings), and charity work to find a cure for diseases like diabetes, which lead to blindness, and provide services for the sight impaired (like the famous leader dogs that you sometimes see assisting folks) just takes precedence even over politics.

But on the ride home, Dan and I had on WTOP and listened as the election results rolled in, so I knew before booting up my computer that Creigh Deeds and Jody Wagner had won convincing victories.

My sincerest congratulations to them both. No, they weren't my first choice, but they are decent people who ran campaigns that they should be proud of. All of our candidates did. Now that the voters have chosen, I certainly pledge my support, energy, and resources to helping them win. As a Democrat, I am proud of our ticket.

My condolences to all those who didn't win. The underside of politics is that lots of really good people put their hearts and souls into winning for their candidate. They sacrifice hours canvassing in the blazing sun or freezing rain, they talk to strangers, have phones hung up in their ears, and give countless hours to the cause. To come up some votes short after that is heartbreaking. And it is a heartbreaker for the candidates too. To all of them, you have my deepest sympathy because I am there with you tonight. Take a day or two to mourn the loss. To heal the wounds.

But then gird up for an even greater battle. November will come sooner than we think and we have great candidates to battle for.

I will write much more about this in a day or two. But for now I am tired. A bit disappointed, but also very pumped.

One special kudos has to go out to Terry McAuliffe. I received an email from him and as part of his concesssion, he turned around and asked for money for Creigh Deeds campaign, complete with a link to where you can donate. Creigh is going to need the funds. And McAuliffe is a class act for going out that way. Thanks Terry, you turned out to be a class act indeed!

Ben Tribbett Calls it for Deeds

Of course, there are still just over 2 hours to get to the polls, but Ben Tribbett is calling this for Creigh Deeds as of 4;45 pm. The money quote:

I think @CreighDeeds has just about locked this down- impressive votes coming out of NoVA for him. Still time to get to the polls though

Ben, as you know, endorsed Terry McAuliffe. Ah, hope springs enternal :)

A Strange Election Predictor Indeed!

I am somewhat reluctant to assign too much significance to this, but I checked my Sitemeter statistics and made a startling discovery. That is, besides the fact that I am getting the highest number of visitors I've ever had, mostly due to interest in the primary. Usually, my readers come from links from other blogs, people who just wander by, and occasionally from readers researching a specific topic on Google, Yahoo, or one of the other search engines.

Today, almost all of my visitors - I would say easily 4 or 5 to 1 - are coming from Google. And they appear to be people researching Creigh Deeds. They are looking for information on Deeds and guns, Deeds and choice, Deeds and religion, etc. I am not seeing as much interest in the other candidates from readers - none of them have been Googling McAuliffe or Moran. At least, not the ones being captured by Sitemeter on my Referral page. There have been a few for Signer and for the Lt Governor's race. But the overwhelming majority that I am getting are look ups for Creigh Deeds.

I suspect that these are undecideds and last minute voters who are breaking his way. They are the ones who haven't been focused on the races before, whose attention has been caught by his momentum over the last few days. Now, they are suddenly tuning in and want to know more before heading off to the polls today.

I have not broken down the geography of where they are all coming from, except that my number of Virginia hits is unusually high too. It's usually the majority of the readers I get, anyway, but not in these numbers.

I am not sure if this actually predicts anything for Creigh Deeds, but it's the first time since I've been doing this (I started after the 2005 election, so I've been blogging actual elections since 2006) that I've ever seen this type of pattern with my visitor statistics.

Get Out The Vote

Well, all the words have been written, the literature mailed or hung on door posts, the phone calls made, the polling done, and the canvassers knocking on doors. All the many hours of dedication and hard work have now come down to the wire. Today is election day for those participating in the Virginia Primary. We had a spirited campaign, sometimes nasty, but mostly civil.

To reiterate my endorsements very briefly:

For Governor: Brian Moran

For Lt. Governor: Mike Signer

For House of Delegates for 35th District: Mark Keam

For House of Delegates for 47th District: Miles Grant

However, whoever wins, I know that after the primary we will be united. We will go, as Democrats, into the general election proudly supporting our candidates for election

Now, go vote. Tonight, win or lose, go party, relax after the hardwork many of you have done for your candidate, and know that in the next few days wounds will heal and we all will work together to continue turning Virginia blue!

WJLA-TV Bio of Brian Moran

H/t to Vivian Paige for this excellent video biography of Brian Moran from WJLA-TV.



Remember, vote next Tuesday, June 9!

Netroots Surrogate Debate This Sunday Night

This Sunday night at 7:30, three of Virginia's most distinguished progressive bloggers will participate in a surrogate's debate for the gubernatorial candidates. Common Sense Virginia is staging the debate at their website. Please go over there and leave questions for the candidates' surrogates in the comment section.

Lowell Feld will speak for the Terry McAuliffe campaign. Carla Ward, aka Catzmaw, will represent Brian Moran, and Waldo Jacquith, Virginia's blogfather, will speak on behalf of Creigh Deed's campaign.

This should be a spirited debate with some of the best informed representatives of the Virginia blogosphere.

AIAW Endorses Brian Moran for Governor

I said yesterday that choosing which candidate to endorse for lieutenant governor was one of the hardest decisions I had to make. And that was certainly true. But choosing who to endorse for governor has proven equally hard.

The truth is we have three very fine candidates, each of whom would make an excellent governor. None of them could be called “lesser of the evils” running against Bob McDonnell. All three are intelligent, capable, and dedicated leaders who have served the Democratic Party well over the years. However, since we can only choose one of these fine men, my choice is Brian Moran and I endorse him proudly. Here is why.

I have known Brian personally for many more years than I can count. I can vouch for his decency and dedication. He has spent a lifetime exhibiting a sense of responsibility and concern for his family and his community. That started for him at a young age.

Brian grew up in a solid, middle class family that knew hard times, including his father’s being laid off from a job. People have joked about his statement that he still hates the taste of powdered milk. Many of those who laugh loudest have never had to drink it themselves.
Brian started working when he was 14, and he held a job bagging groceries. Later, he worked in construction and as a bartender while he was in college.

Just as his future was beginning, when he went away to school, he was abruptly called home to help care for his father, who had taken seriously ill. Subsequently, he graduated with a law degree from Catholic University. Unlike many of his classmates who went on to practice corporate law, Brian passed up a lucrative career for one in public service.

In 1989, he joined the prosecutor’s office, working his way up to become Senior Assistant Commonwealth Attorney. Then, in 1996, he was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates, where he quickly rose to a leadership role, being elected by his fellow Democrats as House Chairman in 2001. In that role, he traveled across the commonwealth to every small town and village to build the Democratic Party and to turn Virginia blue.

In addition to his political activism, Brian immersed himself in service to his community in many other ways. He is an active member of the United Way, has served as Chairman of the Budget and Fiscal Affairs Advisory Council for Alexandria, and is a member of the board of Stop Child Abuse Now.

He was honored as the Jaycees Man of the Year, was twice awarded the Victims and Witnesses of Crime legislative award, and the Mothers Against Drunk Driving Legislator of the Year Award. The Chamber of Commerce presented him with their Friend of Business Award. The League of Conservation Voters gave him their Legislative Award, and he received the Tech Ten Award from the Northern Virginia Technology Council. The Virginia PTA named him the Child Advocate of the Year.

In the House of Delegates, his accomplishments include the following: he cracked down on drunk drivers, improved the small business climate, improved preventive health services, and expanded access to childhood vaccinations. He fought to raise teachers’ salaries.

Not content to rest on his laurels, Brian now wants to be governor so he can continue to bring his progressive vision to the commonwealth and improve the lives of Virginia citizens. Here is a sample of some of the things he would like to accomplish for Virginia.

Brian would protect homeowners from predatory lenders and deceptive mortgage lending practices. He would fight to ensure safe products. He is dedicated to investing in Pre-K education and strengthening K-12 education. In addition, he wants a greater focus on expanding community colleges, improving higher education and an increased investment in higher education research. Brian knows that more research is absolutely essential to creating the new green jobs of the future.

He also would invest in renewable energy, increase production of wind and solar energy, and he supports a Mandatory Renewable Portfolio Standard. Brian is opposed to offshore drilling and the new coal powered plant in Surry. Instead, he favors reducing dependence on foreign oil through renewable energy alternatives, energy efficiency, and plug in and hybrid cars.

Brian supports a woman’s right to choose. At the same time, while in the House of Delegates, he expanded health care access for pregnant woman. That’s because the right to choose also includes the right to choose to carry a healthy baby to term and to have adequate health coverage to do so.

Finally, Brian is committed to fixing the nursing shortage and expanding access to dental care to rural Virginia, where the lack of dental care has produced a severe crisis among the poor. Brian also supports healthcare insurance pools for small businesses so they can provide coverage for their employees.

For all these reasons, Brian’s commitment to helping the middle class, his dedication to the environment and the creation of well paying green jobs, and his long time involvement in his community, I proudly endorse Brian Moran and urge you to vote for him June 9th.

Brian Moran Worked for Virginia Democrats Before Virginia Was Blue

While Creigh Deeds has definitely been on a roll (and good for him, he's a nice, decent man), Brian Moran enjoyed a couple of public boosts today too. First, there was this profile, which is part of a series examining the Virginia gubernatorial candidates, in today's Washington Post. Here's the money quote:

For 13 years, Moran was the go-to guy, the water carrier for the Democrats, the minority party in the Virginia House of Delegates. If a Republican got up to insult then-Gov. Mark Warner or Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, Moran, in an increasing crescendo, was the one who jumped to the microphone in protest. If a Republican signaled a willingness to negotiate, Moran was often the one called in to hammer out a deal, once at a diner over beers with the details spelled out on a bar napkin. Moran was the one who knew which delegate needed what and how to knit together the unruly votes to pass legislation, including a landmark increase in education spending in 2004.

For eight years, as Democratic caucus chair in the House of Delegates, he put 200,000 miles on his gold Toyota Highlander, traveling the state recruiting candidates, raising money, shaking hands at countless local gatherings, all with the aim of recapturing a Democratic majority in the House. His efforts netted 13 new Democratic seats, four seats shy of a majority, and some in areas so conservative that skeptics had told him he was crazy to try.

That's right! While some other candidates, who shall remain nameless, were off basking in the glamor of Washington, DC insider politics, hobnobbing with presidents and millionaires, Brian Moran was toiling in the commonwealth, driving miles to obscure little towns to help build the Virginia Democratic Party. At a time when it wasn't much fun to be a Democrat, Brian was doggedly working to reverse our fortunes. If this is a Richmond insider, it's only because he's been building a Democratic presence to be inside of.

In addition, Mike, at Blueweeds, wrote a really nice endorsement of Moran. Mike reminded me of what made me commit to Moran in the first place:

1. The term of the next governor will likely be dominated by the difficult issues of zero budgeting and redistricting. This is necessary and un-flashy political work for which Brian is particularly well suited;

2. Northern Virginia is rightfully out of step with the rest of Virginia on gay rights and green issues. Brian's campaign has distinguished itself from his opponents on these two issues - demonstrating a clear willingness to lead Virginia in a progressive direction based on clearly articulate political values. Brian's tact on these two issues is clear, different than his opponents, and reflects remarkable political character;

3. Brian has unusually close ties to Falls Church City. He is the only candidate with a Falls Church City business license; he shops here; plays basketball at our community center; makes appearances in our local court system; and routinely sits in our Beltway - Broad Street traffic;

4. Brian is a proven party builder. He has done the hard work of being the minority caucus leader in the house of horrors known as the Republican-led House of Delegates. He has been a terrific advocate - forceful and outspoken on party differences, able to communicate clearly and respectfully with opponents. In a place in which it is especially hard to keep personal integrity, he has managed to do so;

5. Jim Moran, our congressman and Brian's brother, has been a remarkable asset to our region and to the Democratic Party. As a local party leader, Jim's willingness to assist businesses and political leaders in NOVA on grassroots community and constituency issues has been extraordinary. The congressman's value on local issues and party building, irrespective of how one comes down on Jim's outspoken positions on national issues, is hard to overestimate. Jim has kept his distance in his brother's campaign, but supporting Brian is an opportunity to acknowledge the work Jim has done for years for our region;

6. Brian understands the importance of the Dillon Rule to small local jurisdictions like Falls Church. His opponents have either not addressed the Dillon Rule or openly called for its repeal. Repealing the Dillon Rule would polarize the political climate of small jurisdictions and greatly complicate the efforts of communities like ours to maintain independent school systems and run effective local government; and

7. Our local political stealth-zellmiller-dixiecrat dark force has McAuliffe yards signs. All good people on the planet should take note and run, run, away from whatever they are selling. Seriously.

I am not sure I agree completely with Mike. For example, I favor repeal of the Dillon Rule. But since Mike also is the husband of Falls Church Mayor Robin Gardner, I would keep an open mind about his reasons for being in favor of the Dillon Rule. Maybe he knows something about politics and governance at the municipal level that I don't.

But the take home point from Mike and from the Washington Post article is that Brian Moran has been involved with Virginia politics and worked tirelessly to improve our local communities, not just in Northern Virginia, but across the state. He's paid his dues.

By that, I don't mean he just showed up and put in the time. I mean he did the unglamorous, heavy lifting, right here in Virginia.

Leslie Byrne's Endorsement of Creigh Deeds - Update

Bryan Scrafford, who has been doing an amazing job of covering the various campaigns around Northern Virginia, with both solid reporting and great video, was at Leslie Byrne's endorsement of Creigh Deeds, just an hour ago at the Old Courthouse in Fairfax City.

First, the video:



Below is also some of Bryan's rundown of Leslie's reasons for her endorsement:

*Creigh and Leslie have worked together since 1995 when they were in the House of Delegates together. They later served in the Senate together and Leslie was proud to be on the statewide ticket with Creigh in 2005 as she ran for Lt. Governor and he ran for Attorney General.

*Leslie said that you really get to know someone when you’re on the trail with them and Creigh’s “not a creation by consultants. He’s authentic.”

*Leslie said that “no other candidate is better prepared” to take on the responsibility of the Governor’s office.

*Leslie Byrne is known as a progressive candidate and in regards to Creigh’s progressive qualities she pointed outh that he has a 100% pro choice voting record, has done a lot for the environment, earned a 93% ranking for the teachers which is higher than any other gubernatorial candidate has scored, and it’s clear that he’s going to make transportation a priority.

For more, go visit Left of the Hill.

Leslie Byrne to Endorse Creigh Deeds Today!

Lowell and Ben are both reporting that Leslie Byrne intends to endorse Creigh Deeds today. In fact, Lowell wonders why Leslie, the consummate liberal, would endorse the much more conservative Deeds over both McAuliffe and Moran, especially since Moran has deliberately tried to position himself as the most progressive candidate.

It’s equally intriguing that she didn’t go with McAuliffe. To my mind, that raises an even bigger question. Although T-Mac has staked out his position as the centrist, touting his pragmatism; business experience; entrepreneurial spirit; and outsider to Richmond status, McAuliffe has always been a very strong supporter of the Clintons, as has both Leslie and Larry Byrne. Both Byrnes served in the early Clinton administration. They both also were very strong Hillary supporters in last year’s presidential primaries. So, I would have expected them to be natural allies of McAuliffe’s.

I certainly have no guesses as to why Leslie chose Creigh, but I certainly hope she does explain the thought process that went into that decision.

The Washington Post Endorsement of Creigh Deeds

Because I've been busy and out of pocket most of this week, I have just gotten the chance to read and digest the Friday Washington Post's endorsement of Creigh Deeds. Although I am not a huge fan of the WaPo, having frequently criticized their reporting and even their logic, I, surprisingly, find myself agreeing with most of what they had to say. This was a well reasoned, well written, and well balanced editorial endorsement. Anybody who thinks it won't help Deeds in this area is in denial. Whether he ultimately wins enough votes in Northern Virginia to become the Democratic nominee is still open to question, but the Post's endorsement certainly doesn't hurt him.

Their main point is that those who would dismiss Deeds for his "aw shucks" modest demeanor or his rural roots are underestimating him. So are those who think he has less of a grasp of Northern Virginia's complex needs because he is not from the area. In fact, the Post argues convincingly that it's precisely because he is "from a district closer to West Virginia than to Fairfax City" that he is better positioned to defend support and funding favorable to NoVa, even to those rural voters who might object the most.

To illustrate this, the Post relays a story, told by Deeds, where a resident of Lunenberg objected to his taxes being raised to support transportation in Northern Virginia. Deeds responded by telling the man that it was Northern Virginia's tax money that paid for schools in Lunenberg and elsewhere. He explained that NoVa was the business engine of the state, and it was in trouble because of its transportation woes. Deeds helped that man, and so many others, understand that we are one state and that it is rational self interest for all of us to support the common good when it aids all of Virginia. He couldn't have made that argument as persuasively if he were just another Northern Virginia official, who would have been seen as simply supporting the self-interest of his own region.

But Deeds sees the big picture and has put in the hard work to benefit the entire state. As the Washington Post endorsement puts it:

However, delve a bit deeper, and the answer might surprise you. In 18 years in the General Assembly, Mr. Deeds has time and again supported measures that might be unpopular with his rural constituency but that are the right thing to do, for Northern Virginia and the state as a whole. He has demonstrated an understanding of the problems that matter most, the commitment to solve them and the capacity to get things done. Mr. Deeds may not be the obvious choice in the June 9 primary, but he's the right one.

Unlike his opponents, Mr. Deeds has made clear that he would make transportation his first priority, vowing to tackle this region's greatest challenge while his political capital is at its height. His record suggests that he could make headway...

The Washington Post also looks favorably on Deeds support for non-partisan redistricting, which would make elections more competitive and hopefully produce more moderate elected officials, willing and able to compromise in Richmond.

In supporting Deeds, the Post did not tear down the other candidates, but it pointed out some of the differences and how they influenced the editorial board's decision-making process. Here's what they said about the other two Democrats running for the nomination:

Mr. McAuliffe would be an unpredictable choice, a self-described "huckster" who has vacuumed millions from donors as a Clinton confidante and former head of the Democratic National Committee. That's not meant as a dig: Mr. McAuliffe fills a room, and it's easy to imagine him jawboning businesses to move to Virginia or lawmakers to support his agenda. He has proved that he's a quick study who can rattle off facts and figures about the state. Yet, Mr. McAuliffe's promises have been as expansive as his personality, and he has offered no realistic way to foot the bill. It's also unclear whether voters will give Mr. McAuliffe a pass for showing no interest in state politics or governance until setting his sights on the governor's mansion.

Like Mr. Deeds, Mr. Moran has backed redistricting reform and closing the gun show loophole. Particularly impressive is Mr. Moran's strong record on public safety, including advocacy for victims of domestic violence and violent crime and support for decent legal representation for the accused. Mr. Moran has a solid record as a lawmaker and has earned respect from colleagues in both parties. It's hard, though, to point to an instance when he made the politically difficult choice. Mr. Moran's positions seem to have evolved for the primary campaign: He's moved left of Mr. McAuliffe and Mr. Deeds in opposing both offshore drilling and a coal plant in Surry County.

Of course, it is hard to find an instant where Moran had to make a politically difficult choice simply because he represented one of the most progressive and Democratic districts in Virginia. But in opposing offshore drilling and, especially, the coal plant in Surry, Moran made an extremely politically difficult and courageous decision, one which cost him valuable union support.

To read only the progressive Virginia blogosphere, you wouldn't know it. Indeed, you could get the impression that to be so strongly pro-environmental was the smart thing to do, indeed, even that it was pandering to the most valuable members of the progressive community.

Not so. Moran has staked his campaign as a fighting, pro-worker populist as well as an environmentalist and, in doing so, he has bucked one important segment of that community, the building trades and mineworkers unions. To say they have been less than thrilled about Moran's stand on Surry would be an understatement. In fact, it has probably cost Moran donations and support. Unfortunately, the WaPo doesn't really talk much to Virginia labor so it has to be forgiven for overlooking this small fact, which demonstrates Moran's political courage and commitment to doing the right thing for all of Virginia.

Other than that, the Washington Post's take on Deeds is persuasive and fair. To my mind, they made an excellent case for their choice. It also further sharpened my own thinking about Terry McAuliffe.

I don't want to belabor my opposition or provide the right wing attack machine with any ammunition against somebody who may well be our nominee come November, but while Virginians are still deciding on that nominee, I would be derelict in my responsibility, as a blogger, not to give my honest opinion. And that opinion is that I personally am uncomfortable with a huckster. And not just any huckster but one who adapted the label so proudly himself. It bothers me greatly that McAuliffe doesn't even realize why that there is a problem with being a huckster. Moral compass anybody?

I am not in the camp that claims it will refuse to support McAuliffe. He has some strengths, which the Posts also points out. But if I had to choose (actually, I do and so do you) between the candidates, I am going to come down in support of authenticity. I think either Moran or Deeds has more of it than Terry does.

Of course, this is not the last word, except for right now.

Bob McDonnell Comes Up Empty For Virginians

I'm probably a little behind the curve on this, but still, let's keep this going viral and in the public's awareness. It's a great ad by Commonsense Virginia.