Results tagged “Primary” from Ultimate Politics

This Friday's New York Times investigation: "Payback Time: Exotic Deals Put Denver Schools Deeper in Debt" casts a laser focus on Michael Bennet's investment into a 'risky' derivative swap by as Superintendent of Denver Public Schools. Pasts attempts by the Bennet campaign to deflect questions about this investigation are now laid bare and there are guilty parties involved. Now, Colorado Democratic Representative Mark Ferrandino, Chair of the State Budget committee is calling for a bi-partisan audit by both the Colorado State House and Senate of this investment that has already cost Denver Public Schools 25 million dollars and counting. Listen here on local Progressive Talk show host Mario Solis-Marich's Friday show at about 1/3rd through the podcast. http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/DENVER-CO/KKZN-AM/mario%208-6-10%204pm.mp3 Representative Ferrandino is exactly the person to call for this investigation. In addition to his position on the Joint Budget Committee, he has served as a budget analyst for the Clinton and Bush Administrations - specifically working on the interest rate for the National Debt. Rep. Ferrandino:

We are going to ask members of both parties and both chambers to do an audit of the investment because this has bigger implications than just DPS (Denver Public Schools), because of the recent merger of DPS and PERA (Colorado's Public Employees Retirement Association, because if (the investment) was done wrong, this could have an impact not just on Denver, not just the kids in Denver, but the State as a whole.

One possible solution Rep. Ferrandino suggests is that Superintendent Boasberg should negotiate with JP Morgan to forgive the 81 million penalty fee for withdrawing from the investment - although that seems somewhat unlikely. And the story goes deeper than just this report. Aaron Harber, a local PBS affiliate reporter has just condemned the one sided nature of the coverage by the Denver Post, who has endorsed Senator Bennet. From PBS' Aaron Harber

There also is no question the state's most influential media entity, The Denver Post , not only has endorsed Bennet but has been hammering Romanoff unmercifully. The Post slammed Romanoff for appearing to waiver on his commitment to not take Political Action Committee money due to a statement by his campaign manager and then hit Romanoff even harder for his inappropriate use of the word "looting" when describing some of Bennet's business transactions, it had to hurt Romanoff. Simultaneously, it almost totally ignored Bennet's totally unfounded claims and television advertising attacks on Romanoff for allegedly supporting the privatization of Social Security (when, in fact, he actually opposed it). If Romanoff loses, it will demonstrate, in part, the power of The Post. If he wins, it will be one more success for Romanoff against a dominant establishment entity.

At the time of this story, and despite the overwhelming evidence from other news sources, the Denver Post's editorial board have only written "Jury still out on risky DPS loan" In league with the Denver Post is the local blog, Colorado Pols, which had initially criticized Governor Ritter's pick of the unelected and unknown Michael Bennet and of Michael Bennet himself: http://www.coloradopols.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8821

(Bennet) demonstrated an almost total lack of charisma. And this is exactly why we thought Gov. Bill Ritter's selection of Bennet for U.S. Senate was such a disaster... And these are Democrats. Active Democrats. If they don't know who Bennet is, and if he doesn't have the natural charisma to carry a small room, then how is he going to win a statewide election in 2010?

But after initially praising Andrew Romanoff's entry into the race for one month - Colorado Pols turned on Andrew Romanoff and have negatively attacked the Romanoff campaign - even the board members calling for an investigation. (draw your own conclusions about why an objective site suddenly became partisan for Bennet) I wrote about this in "Colorado Pols caught spinning for Bennet"

Andrew Romanoff should win Tuesday and then will win the General with ease. If however, Michael Bennet wins Tuesday, he better win in November as well. Because if he doesn't win in November, then this site will be squarely to blame for helping at every turn to defeat a stronger candidate in Andrew Romanoff.

Colorado Pols generally supports democrats, so I am surprised by their railroading of Andrew Romanoff. But the bigger question remains - Is this a coordinated cover up or were they hoodwinked by Michael Bennet? Back to the story: Although the problems with the risky loan was relayed numerous times by 3 of the 7 school board members, those members were attacked by Senator Bennet's campaign, the Denver Post,by Colorado Pols, by the DPS school board President Theresa Pena, who is also Michael Bennet's campaign treasurer, and by the current Superintendent Thomas Boasberg - who is also the lifelong friend and political ally of Michael Bennet. These conflicts of interest do not end there:

JP Morgan Chase, the bank behind the DPS deal, has contributed to the Bennet campaign. According to information made available through the money-tracking Sunlight Foundation, Chase has donated $3,000 to the Bennet campaign. An innovative Sunlight Foundation tool called "Poligraft," for example, also turns up the fact that Level 3 Communications has aggregated $19,550 to the Bennet campaign, which means contributions to the campaign have come from the organization's employees, their family members, and the Level 3 political action committee. Thomas Boasberg, now head of DPS and Chief Operating Officer at the time of the controversial Chase deal, was a mergers and acquisitions executive at Level 3. According to the New York Times, it was Boasberg and Bennet who spearheaded the DPS-Chase deal, leveraging their financial experience to sway the DPS board.

Now JP Morgan is funding Bennet's campaign, and Boasberg has been blocking any investigation. This is what he said about the board member's claim in March of 2010.

"This attack is a regrettable action by a few disgruntled board members who are seeking to create a political controversy where no controversy exists," said Superintendent Tom Boasberg.

I'd imagine you'd say that, not only to protect Senator Bennet, but yourself as well. And with the School Board President Theresa Pena also serving as Bennet's campaign treasurer, dissenters on the School Board have been silenced by procedure. But the campaign can no longer deny these people's claims now that it is being covered by the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN and Markos of Daily Kos.

This "exotic deal", akin to a variable interest rate mortgage, has now cost the Denver school system $25 million more than originally planned, and getting out of the deal would cost the district another $81 million in termination fees. But no one could've predicted! (That's really Bennet's defense.)

The Denver Post routinely is conservative - even endorsing McCain over Obama. It is quite likely that the Denver Post will sit on this story until Tuesday's primary is over, and should Michael Bennet win, suddenly become interested in covering the derivative swap. (the Denver Post has an editorial that is now attacking Bennet) With an ongoing bi-partisan audit of this swap looming ahead, the Republican General Election candidate will have a hammer to wield against Michael Bennet. (the leading candidate being Ken Buck - who does not believe in abortion even in the case of incest and rape) Ken Buck as Senator will be a disaster for Colorado. Even worse, Colorado is one of the swing states that could decide the balance of power in the Senate. And the Republicans will most certainly take advantage of this issue and defeat Michael Bennet in the General. For the sake of holding on this seat for Democratic party, Democrats must call on Michael Bennet to step down from the primary. Supporting Andrew Romanoff is not just about liking or disliking a candidate, it's about the Democrats best chance to retain this Senate Seat.

Volunteers for Andrew Romanoff are busting their behinds day in and day out and Mr.Romanoff himself is crisscrossing the state connecting with voters and making his case for their vote. What's Bennet up to? From the latest edition of the New Yorker

Michael Bennet, a freshman Democrat from Colorado, said, "Sit and watch us for seven days--just watch the floor. You know what you'll see happening? Nothing. When I'm in the chair, I sit there thinking, I wonder what they're doing in China right now?"

uh, what? You have a primary - Guess your day dreaming is happening on the campaign trail too and Andrew Romanoff is taking advantage of it - and is surging in the polls. Local Progressive Talk Show Host Mario Solis Marich says it best today: (paraphrase)

"In my history of campaigns, I always said a candidate can't win without PAC money - I have never said you could win without it. Now that's not the case. Romanoff is doing it."

As you can see in this diary about Primary Candidate Andrew Romanoff (that was up on the rec list for the last 2 days) - Mr. Romanoff has come from behind from a double digit deficit to a lead in 4 weeks - and all without taking any PAC money against a conservadem. Wednesday August 4th is the Andrew Romanoff Moneybomb Day Help Andrew get not only past the primary but able to beat a Tea Party Republican (Ken Buck) in the General: Donate to Andrew Romanoff here

From the Denver Post:http://www.denverpost.com/election2010/ci_15650614

Romanoff and Bennet are about even -- 48 percent to 45 percent, respectively -- in the poll of 536 Democrats who have voted or are likely to vote in the Aug. 10 primary. The question has a margin of error of 4.3 percentage points. Bennet "scrambling" "The fact that Bennet has Barack Obama ads on everyone's television screens multiple times a day right now shows that he's scrambling to win this primary," said Eric Sondermann, a Denver political consultant. "That is not an ad you'd run in the general election." Billie Young, 82, of Pueblo is voting for Romanoff because she didn't receive a response from Bennet's local office when she called for help. "If he can't take care of his locals, why would we want to vote for him to take care of the whole state?" Young said.

It seems the game is afoot. Andrew Romanoff has surged to within striking distance, and his ground campaign has paid more attention to the actual voters of Colorado.

This week on Huffington Post's Denver page, Michael Bennet posted an article - Close the Revolving Door, which talks about his efforts to reform the Lobbyist ways of Washington. It would seem the readers from Colorado did not take comfort in the Senator's words in light of his recent votes. I have a friendly tip for Senator Bennet's staff, next time your Candidate writes an article, remember to turn off the "Comments" section of his article - which Huffington Post allows diarists to do. The resulting comments in response to Bennet's post can only be summed up as 'devastating' for a candidate trailing his Republican opponents and facing a grassroots backed primary challenge from Andrew Romanoff. Shall we take a peak at why the respondents are so angry? (Crossposted at Square State and Huffington Post)

Senator Bennet: Speaking as one of your constituents, I must say that it is my philosophy that actions speak louder than words (more honestly as well). As others have pointed out in previous letters on this article, your name is conspicuous by being listed as one of those that voted against the Kaufman-Brown SAFE amendment. Would you care to explain your actions? It will determine what actions I will take in November.

.

Appointed never-been-elected Senator Bennet, I would also like to know why you voted no on the cramdown legislation. Will you continue to vote in favor of the banks and against tax payers? Why don't you stop taking contributions from the banks after all banking reform legislation is before you and it would be the right thing to do?

Talk about revolving door. Bennet just voted against downsizing the biggest banks. This guy is one of the greatest recipients of money from financial institutions. How corrupt can you get. He is on his way out come November. Good riddance to this corrupt senator from CO.

"Yeah, I agree with you, Senator Bennet!! The close of "the revolving door" should begin by voting you out in November. With this piece, are you trying to cover up your tracks----voting against the American people and for the banks?? If that's the reason of penning this piece, then I think you haven't succeeded. I used to like you as a senator, but yesterday's vote scuttle it all when I wasn't able to find your name among the "yeahs" to that amendment. I guess it's time for Coloradans to try Romanoff out by sending him to Washington in your place."

and the hits just keep coming... So what specifically did Bennet do that was so wrong? from a press release from the Romanoff campaign:

The battle between Main Street and Wall Street has emerged as a key dividing line in the Colorado Senate race: • Twice, Sen. Bennet voted against a full audit of the Federal Reserve. This morning, Sen. Bennet voted no on the Vitter Amendment (S. Amdt. 3760 to S. Amdt. 3739 to SB 3217) that would require a full audit of the FED. He did the same in April of last year. (S. Amdt. 875 to S.Con.Res.13) Andrew would have voted to fully audit the Federal Reserve. • On May 6th, 2010, Sen. Bennet voted against an amendment that would have imposed leverage and liability limits on bank holding companies and financial companies, to prevent them from becoming too big to fail. (S. Amdt. 3733 to S. Amdt. 3739 to SB 3217) Andrew supported this proposal. • On April 30th, 2009, Sen. Bennet voted against legislation that would have prevented mortgage foreclosures and preserved home values (S. Amdt. 1014 to SB 896). Andrew supported this proposal. Sen. Bennet's no vote was a victory for Wall Street and an insult to families across the country who are struggling to stay in their homes during this weak economic time.

Yikes. This is where raising the 5th highest amount of campaign money from Wall Street changes from being an advantage to a liability. It seems Mr. Bennet's votes certainly have a way of favoring those who have given him the most money. The real question though is why? Bennet had to have known that these votes were going to be fodder for either his primary or general opponent - so why do it? That's the real rub - he HAD to vote these terrible votes because of who is really representing - Wall Street and the banks. They have their Senator, but we have our opportunity to be heard in the Primary. For those who like Senator Bennet and can overlook his votes, consider the fact that in polling done vs his Republican rivals, he trails them by a larger margin than his Primary candidate, Andrew Romanoff. Most importantly, Bennet's poll of positive view vs. negative view is 45 positive vs 45 negative - which is worse than any other candidate running - while Andrew Romanoff's numbers of 46 positive to 34 negative and is better than all three Republicans in the field. If you need anything to know, it's that keeping Bennet past the Primary is the most certainly the best way to turn a Senate seat over to the Republicans - most likely a Tea Party candidate . For me, I agree that it is time to support someone who has pledge to take no Corporate PAC money - Andrew Romanoff. Stop by his fundraising page and toss him a buck or two.

It's simple really, to hold on to a Senate seat, don't start out a re-election campaign without the support of base democratic voters. But here in Colorado, Senator Michael Bennet is starting out his re-election bid with that strategy. In addition to that some lifelong Democrats are saying

"they will vote Republican before they will vote for Michael Bennet"

Denver Teachers told me that was the sentiment among Denver Public School teachers about incumbent Democratic Senator Michael Bennet. (See video) That statement should give any democrat reason for pause, considering the Democrats need to hold on to every vulnerable Senate seat in what looks to be an anti-incumbent election year - and 'Colorado is in the Toss up category' - with Republicans seeking to take back the Senate. Senator Bennet was appointed Superintendent of Denver Public Schools, and a few years later was appointed to the Senate to replace Senator Salazar. However, the Teachers who worked under Michael Bennet's tenure as the Denver Public Schools Superintendent have some choice words about his re-election efforts to the Senate. (yikes!) Crossposted at Huffington Post and Square State

MS. BARBARA BENNETT: I was actually on the committee of teachers that participated in interviewing Michael Bennet, and at that time during his interviews he was committed to staying as superintendent in Denver Public Schools for five years. As we know, he did not stay five years. And when he began his career as superintendent in Denver, he really did make the effort to go out and start talking to teachers, something that was sort of unheard of. And I have to say that I noticed over the years that that dwindled significantly as soon as he started getting pushback from teachers; he didn't spend the time talking to teachers as much as he had when he first started. And I kind of feel like he used the superintendent's job to create a name for himself as a stepping stone to move on into politics, and that's exactly what happened. So, that's how I perceive Michael Bennet.

I included this quote because it comes from someone who was monitoring Mr. Bennet's term at the helm of Denver Public Schools from before day 1 through the time that he left, and who had given him the benefit of the doubt about his tenure. Even then, she noticed he became less and less approachable as his decisions as Superintendent became less and less popular. Next, Mr. Bennet's veracity on his policies and agenda as Superintendent. Mr. Bennet negotiated the removal of a popular pay system known as Pro-Comp which rewards career track teachers. After this was done, he stated to the press that the Denver teachers had just received the biggest pay raise in Colorado history - but it turns out it was only a raise in terms of retirement benefits.

(question) (ME) As Superintendent, Michael Bennet stated on camera that Denver Teachers had just received a pay raise - was it a raise? MS.UNDERWOOD-VERDEAL "Technically that is one way to talk about compensation, but that is certainly not the way we live, because I won't be able to use my retirement to go the grocery store now. It was not a raise teachers realized on their paychecks." So it was not true? "No, it was not true, in the practical sense."

This half-truth espoused by Superintendent Bennet was reviled by many school teachers, and Ms. Underwood-Verdeal was not the first teacher to talked to me about this issue. Lastly, while Superintendent Mr. Bennet recommended the Denver Public School board to invest 700 million dollars of the Retirement account into a 'sound investment strategy' - which they did, because after all, Mr. Bennet was appointed to the Superintendent position because of his finance and management expertise. It now turns out that the investment strategy for the retirement funds was none other than a banking derivative swap just like the kind that bankrupted Greece and several municipalities around the country.

MS.MELISSA UNDERWOOD-VERDEAL:"As we find out more about this (investment) we are finding out it was risky. The fact we lost millions of dollars is clear, and teachers are starting to worry about their retirement."

What do all of these decisions by Mr. Bennet as Superintendent add up to? Consider Michael Bennet's re-election bid to the Senate:

(ME): "Let's ask a hypothetical question, if Andrew Romanoff loses to Bennet, to Michael Bennet in the primary, what do you think of that? What have you heard?" MS.UNDERWOOD-VERDEAL"I have heard from many people that they will not vote in that race" MS.BENNETT"I have heard lifelong democrats, teachers, in Denver, say they will not vote for Michael Bennet, that they will vote Republican, before they will vote for Michael Bennet."

Why the opinions of these teachers are crucial to retaining this Senate seat for Democrats: Colorado's population is basically 1/3rd Democrat, 1/3rd Independent, and 1/3rd Republican. Democrat candidates in state wide contests usually win by this strategy: First the candidate must take up a centrist platform in the General election which appeals to at least half of the Independents and also might peel away a Republican vote or two. And secondly, the candidate must absolutely sew up every single Democratic vote of the base voters and energize the Democrats who are not consistent voters. Now consider this: Senator Bennet is starting his Re-election bid with the ire of the State's largest School system with 4,555 current teachers. Denver is a democratic stronghold, and many of these teachers are active in the Democratic party, and as you can see above, are not afraid to share their opinion with someone they just met with a camera. That means they are sharing their opinions with other teachers in the Colorado Education Association. That means they are sharing their opinions with their spouses and relatives. Think about this, 4,555 teachers in Denver, the state's largest city, with the most democratic votes, seem to judge Senator Bennet in three categories: 1)lukewarm in supporting Bennet's candidacy 2)will not vote in the Senate race 3)or are willing to switch their vote from Democrat to Republican, even as a lifelong democrat. In addition to this, the banking derivative swap that Bennet persuaded the DPS school board to invest in was a very poor decision. It is disappointing to the teachers, but in this election cycle, any association to Wall Street or banks or lost money in bad investments go over like a lead balloon. In addition with that poor decision, Senator Bennet was one of the few Democrats that stood up for Banks to oppose cramdown, which would have allowed millions of people to re-negotiate their mortgages. And you can certainly guarantee that whoever the Republican challenger is, that vote and those banking derivative investment decisions will be repeated in every attack ad, thus weakening Bennet's chances among independents. (and even though this will not be a big General election issue, in light of the recent Oil Spill and especially the deadly coal mine disasters, as an environmentalist, it is hard to get behind a person who joined with fellow conservadems to support millions in tax subsidies for natural gas as well as for coal, which is not surprising since Bennet was at the top of the list for receiving funds from Utility companies) No matter your opinion of Senator Bennet, it is clear that to allow Michael Bennet out of his primary will be giving the Republicans an easier path to victory this fall. And looking at the Tea-party loving candidates the Republican are putting up, it behooves the Democratic party to put up the best candidate for the general election. Democrats in Colorado and across the nation, need a tested political candidate who has actually run for office and won an election, something Bennet has never done. The moderator in the most recent debate summed up my sentiments about Senator Bennet's chances considering how he is running his re-election campaign. (At 14:41 in this video of the debate)

MODERATOR: "Despite your significant fundraising advantage, your performances in caucuses and county assemblies has been underwhelming. By all evidence, you have been out-organized. In fact, it appears, you, a sitting U.S. Senator, are pursuing a back-up plan to gather signatures in order to just qualify for the August 10, primary ballot. Given your lackluster performance so far, please outline why you would be the strongest democratic candidate to run against a tough Republican candidate this fall?"

Bennet's primary opponent, Andrew Romanoff, is a viable alternative who can win the general. Andrew Romanoff polls better vs the Republican challengers, has the support of the majority of the base as evidenced by consecutive caucus victories and perhaps most importantly has been part of the leadership in the Democratic party and has campaigned on statewide legislation. It is time to listen to our teachers and to common sense. Support Andrew Romanoff's primary challenge in order to send the strongest candidate into the General Election and to retain this Senate seat from Colorado.

Headlines today tell of Wall Street bailouts and banking abuses that have resulted in our usurious credit card hikes, heartless foreclosures, and the bankruptcy of Greece's entire economy. It seems that no person or institution is safe from corrupt banking practices. While we might naively think that these practices are limited to Wall Street and large banking institutions, it has become clear that these practices have robbed our communities as well. Big banks, along with politicians, have lured states and communities across the US to buy into banking derivatives or 'swaps' and all are paying the price. And in each of these cases, well heeled politicians were paving the way for the banks at the people's expense. Let's look at a few example, and find out why Bill Richardson had to withdraw his name for Commerce Secretary, and why Colorado Senator Michael Bennet has a lot to explain. (hattip to JeffcoBlue) (Crossposted at Square State) To explain the derivatives that bankrupted Greece, and threaten to rob the pension of Colorado School Teachers, let's look at this article from the New York Times:

Across our very own country, municipalities, school districts, sewer systems and other tax-exempt debt issuers are ensnared in the derivatives mess. Like the credit default swaps that hid Greece's obligations, the instruments weighing on our municipalities were brought to us by the creative minds of Wall Street. The rocket scientists crafting the products got backup from swap advisers, a group of conflicted promoters who consulted municipalities and other issuers. Both of these camps peddled swaps as a way for tax-exempt debt issuers to reduce their financing costs. Now, however, the promised benefits of these swaps have mutated into enormous, and sometimes smothering, expenses. Making matters worse, issuers who want out of the arrangements -- swap contracts typically run for 30 years -- must pay up in order to escape. That's right. Issuers are essentially paying twice for flawed deals that bestowed great riches on the bankers and advisers who sold them. Taxpayers should be outraged, but to be angry you have to be informed -- and few taxpayers may even know that the complicated arrangements exist.

So the Bankers have preying upon municipalities who needed financial solutions in a down economy, only to find out they had been duped. But who was advising the municipalities? Our elected officials: New Mexico: (hattip Colleen Heild and Mike Gallagher)

They were touted as a state-of-the-art financing tool that would help New Mexico stretch its highway improvement dollars. Nearly five years later, state officials are trying to keep the $420 million in fancy financing from turning sour. In the last six months, one of the banks involved in the so-called interest rate swaps has gone bankrupt and the state has had to post about $16 million in collateral because the value of the investments dropped. That's in addition to major political fallout. The swaps and how a California company was selected to handle them are at the center of a federal grand jury investigation that derailed Gov. Bill Richardson's nomination as commerce secretary.

It seems that many state municipalities engaged in swaps that are now causing a lot of anger among tax payers:

Eight California municipalities, including Los Angeles, Fresno and San Diego County, filed civil class-action, or group lawsuits. The suits, most of which were consolidated with others in U.S. District Court in New York City, allege that banks colluded by deliberately losing bids in exchange for winning one in the future, providing so-called courtesy bids, secretly compensating losing bidders and allowing banks to see other bids. Brokers participated in the collusion by facilitating communication among banks and sharing in illegal profits, the civil class-action suits allege.

And what is the cost of extracting your state from the swap?

New York State provides a good example. An Oct. 30, 2009, filing describing its swaps shows that for the most recent fiscal year, April 2008 to March 2009, the state paid $103 million to terminate roughly $2 billion worth of swaps -- more than a quarter of which resulted from the Lehman bankruptcy in September 2008.

On a local level here in Colorado, the circle grows tighter, as Colorado's own State Senator, Chris Romer, was at that time the person lobbying for New Mexico to engage in these Swaps.

NMFA records show that among those lobbying for the swaps was a lead banker for JP Morgan, Chris Romer. His company ended up among the five banks that entered into swap agreements with the state.

And the ties to Colorado don't stop there - Senate appointee - Colorado's Michael Bennet was formerly at the head of Denver Public Schools. He was at the helm when the decision was made to invest the Teacher's pension fund into a derivative 'swap' deal. Now, 2 years, Denver Public Schools is paying about 3 million per month in losses on this swap.

DPS (Denver Public Schools) entered into negotiations with JP Morgan and CitiGroup, agreeing to issue fixed-rate bonds secured by DPS school buildings and other properties. DPS then began discussion to enter into an interest-rate swap agreement with JP Morgan, Bank of America and the Royal Bank of Canada. We believe that following ensued: DPS entered into a swap transaction, believing that interest rates would stay high. As recent financial news tells us, interest rates fell. We are concerned that this may have translated to a loss of taxpayer dollars.

I wonder if the local SEIU chapter will stand by it's endorsement of the newly appointed Senator - Michael Bennet, who happens to have raised the 5th highest amount of campaign cash from Wall street banks and was responsible for putting our Teacher's pension in a 'swap' when SEIU international is now calling for a sweeping investigation of these 'swaps'. In the face of the worst economy since the depression, we don't need gambling on derivatives with taxpayer money at the expense of teacher's pension. Join SEIU's call for an investigation ,to get some kind of justice. As for me, I will support Bennet's primary challenger.

(crossposted on Daily Kos)
Here in Colorado, we just had our annual Democratic Party Jefferson Jackson dinner. The speaker was former Clinton Aide, and CNN commentator, Paul Begala.
There were two things about this dinner that surprised me.
The first was the ability of Paul Begala as a speaker, (his closing topic about his Grandmother's visit to the White House brought down the house)
and second, was the level of support for Andrew Romanoff for a Senate Primary run in 2010...

First of all, I was pleasantly surprised by Paul Begala. The man can give a speech. He is one those rare democrats that can weave his beliefs and religion into his speech without coming across as preachy. Thank you Mr. Begala.

Secondly, our first official testing of the waters was quite successful. At the Colorado Convention Center, the annual JJ Dinner was larger than it has ever been, and our numbers of elected officials was larger than it has ever been.
As we handed our volunteers their clipboards with sign up sheets and stickers that said "Friends of Andrew Romanoff", I was a little skeptical about how willing people would be to show their support. It takes nerve for volunteers to circulate petitions for a primary at a formal function.
However, my volunteers were running out of stickers and out of sign up sheets and were turning people away by the time dinner started.

Senior Citizens don't come up to you and grab your arm and tell you "tell him we are behind him" for nothing.

And, even more so, elected officials in the State House and Senate have a lot to risk by signing our sheets to support Andrew Romanoff in a primary, yet they still did so.
And this dinner was not a freebie. Tickets were over $100, and the people there are part of the fundraising base.
Barack Obama has proven that when the people are behind you, they can outraise the millionaires and make their voices heard.

Thanks to Ray, Lori, Alex, Faren, Julia and to Sarah for your hard work last night. (sorry I did not print up more stickers and sign up sheets!!!)

Mr. Romanoff, if you are reading this, the support for you is real, the people are behind you.