The Civil Liberties and Public Policy, and the Population and Development Programs at Hampshire College in Amherst, MA are hosting their 19th annual conference on reproductive rights and social justice, April 1-3, 2005. Hundreds of students and activists from all over the country, and other parts of the world will be attending this unique, and uniquely important event.

In an article I wrote about these annual gatherings, conference organizer Marlene Gerber Fried, a professor of philosophy at Hampshire, acknowledges that it is very unusual for academic programs to sponsor an event that mixes choice-related organizing and scholarship. She explained that the college programs that jointly sponsor the conference are, like Hampshire itself, “committed to knowledge being grounded in the world and in academic work and where the two meet each other.”

“We don’t bring in the stars,” Fried continued. “We place a very high priority on diversity of voices–age and race and country.”

“For older activists, it is tremendous,” she added. “And for young people, it’s not a place where the older people are going to tell you what it’s like. It’s a place where people’s experience is of value, whether it’s a year or 50 years.”

The work and experience of the past 18 years in refining how to put on this always interesting, engaging and well organized event will be evident to all who attend. Here is the conference description:

“If you are committed to reproductive rights and social justice, this is THE place to be the first weekend in April. For 18 years, people have been gathering over this weekend at Hampshire College to unite and rally for reproductive justice. Each year the conference expands in scope and size. We now expect 500-600 participants and offer over 30 workshops. Conference speakers address reproductive freedom as it relates to a broad range of social justice initiatives including economic justice, healthcare reform, racial equality, peace, freedom from violence, youth liberation, civil liberties, and LGBTQ rights.

The scope of the threats presents an opportunity for people to come together and create a new and inclusive vision of reproductive freedom, social justice and peace. While opposition to abortion and gay rights has taken center stage, the Right’s political agenda is all encompassing, and our resistance must be too. We must build bridges between different progressive movements in order to defeat the Right and create a just society. The time is now.”

The conference agenda and partial speakers list is posted on the conference web site.

Here is a sample of the interesting speakers on the agenda:

Donna Schaper (The Rev. Dr.) is Executive Director of the Women’s Fund of Western Massachusetts and part time pastor of the North Hadley Congregational Church. She was a founding member of Clergy Consultation, an early abortion counseling service.

Pam Chamberlain is a veteran educator and trainer helping organizations plan effective strategies to fight the Right. She helped create four Activist Resource Kits for Political Research Associates and has been the lead researcher on their Campus Activism Project.

Sara Littlecrow-Russell is an activist, lawyer, single mother, award-winning political poet and mediator from the Bear Clan Anishinaabe Metis. She focuses on indigenous women’s health, domestic violence, long-term conflict resolution, and restorative justice.

Bill Newman is an attorney and the Director of the Western Regional Office of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts and speaks regularly about the USA Patriot Act and other government responses to 9-11.

Louis Prisock is currently a visiting professor of African American Studies at Mount Holyoke College. Prisock’s research focuses on the participation of African Americans, women, and gays in conservative social movements.

People often travel great distances for this conference, and with good reason. Come with a group, or come by yourself. But do plan to come

D. James Kennedy has been one of the key leaders in the development of the Christian Right. He has also been a pioneering televangelist, who has methodically build a massive religious, media, and political empire. He recently held his tenth annual conference on “Reclaiming America,” one of the premier Christian Right political conferences. But most people have never heard of him. This needs to change.

Fortunately, two fine reporters have recently written important stories, from different perspectives, about the Kennedy empire.

Jane Lampman of The Christian Science Monitor was at the conference and wrote a feature story about the conference and Kennedy’s role in public life. One of the conference highlights was a display of the controversial monument to the Ten Commandments, which Alabama Chief Judge Roy Moore had installed in the state courthouse. A federal judge ordered it removed. When Moore refused, Moore was removed from the bench, and “Roy’s Rock” was removed from the courthouse.
“For more than 900 other Christians from across the US,” Lampman reported, “the draw at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church last month was a national conference aimed at ‘reclaiming America for Christ.’ The monument stood as a potent symbol of their hopes for changing the course of the nation…. Their mission is not simply to save souls” Lampman continues. “The goal is to mobilize evangelical Christians for political action to return society to what they call ‘the biblical worldview of the Founding Fathers.’ Some speak of ‘restoring a Christian nation.’ Others shy from that phrase, but agree that the Bible calls them not only to evangelize, but also to transform the culture.”

“In material given to conference attendees, the Rev. D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge pastor wrote: ‘As the vice-regents of God, we are to bring His truth and His will to bear on every sphere of our world and our society. We are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government … our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors – in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.’”

Kennedy has Washington-based political operation called the Center for Reclaiming America, which is growing in political significance.

“The Center,” Lampman reports, “aims to increase its 500,000-strong ‘e-mail army’ to 1 million, and to encourage Christians to run for office. It has plans for 12 regional offices and activists in all 435 US House districts. And a new lobbying arm in Washington will target judicial nominations and the battle over marriage.

“‘If they don’t vote our way, we’ll change their view one way or another,’ executive director Gary Cass tells the group. As a California pastor, Dr. Cass spearheaded efforts to close abortion clinics and recruit Christians to seek positions on local school boards. ‘We’re going to take back what we lost in the last half of the 20th century,’ he adds.”

Independent journalist, and columnist Bill Berkowitz also recently published a must-read profile on Kennedy and his multifaceted religious, political and media empire.

Kennedy is a Christian nationalist who believes that the framers of the Constitution did not intend that church be separated from the state, and that the Christian Nation must be restored.

The several varieties of Christian nationalism is a core, animating part of the ideology of the Christian Right. I have long argued that it is essential for those who seek to preserve religious pluralism in the U.S., to understand what Christian nationalism is about, and be able to counter the bogus history and false premises on which it is based.

I sought to do this (among other things) in my book Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy. Last December, adapting material from the book, I sought to debunk Christian nationalism in an essay on this site, and crossposted on The Daily Kos.

Kennedy is far less flamboyant than Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, and is less likely than James Dobson to get silly and attack SpongeBob Squarepants, and other cartoon characters. His operation is not to be underestimated, and like the others, must not be ignored.

The story of a small administrative error in Boston offers a window into how injustices can be obscured, downplayed, even denied. It plays into the voter intimidation scandal that has surfaced in the 18th Suffolk District in Massachusetts, which just held a remarkable Democratic primary for state representative.

It all started a week or so ago when Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr, sounded the alarm that BU students might help elect openly gay, and pro-marriage equality candidate Tim Schofield in the Democratic primary for an open seat for state representative. Carr wrote: [I]f I were one of the other two major candidates, I’d be plotting a dirty trick for this weekend.”

On March 12th, three days before the primary, a member of the Ward 22 Democratic Committee, Bart McCauley, (who was as a supporter of antimarriage equality candidate Greg Glennon), issued a press release citing Carr’s piece. The release was rife with baseless arguments that students who live in dorms do not have the right to vote. He warned of “potential legal issues with fraudulent voter registrations.” According to a detailed report by the political blog Blue Mass Group, on election day a gang of “challengers,” accosted every prospective voter they could. (It has since come out that McCauley was among the challengers.) Some students cast provisional ballots. Some were turned away. Many others heard about what was going on and didn’t bother to vote.

Josh Sugarman, who was Schofield’s campaign manager, is a college student himself. He is outraged, and is calling for reform of double standards applied to student voters. He says that early on primary day, students were required to provide proof of residency — something that Sugarman says may be required of first time voters or those who have registered by mail, but is rarely actually required. Proof of residency for such purposes might be utility bills or bank statements, but of course for students who live in dorms, all they have is a P.O. Box. Mike Jervis of the BU College Dems told me that there is no residency info on thier unversity IDs either. In other words, no one has documentation considered sufficient to prove that they live in a dorm in the district, because such proof does not exist. Word quickly spread that students who live in dorms would not be able to vote, and many did not show up. In fact, students who live in dorms do have right to vote — but this right is undermined by the shrewd and selective enforcement of this kind of requirement — and the failure of voting officials, university officials, and officials of both major parties, to reasonably anticipate and provide for ways to verify residency without applying impossible standards.

All of which brings me to the glitch.

In the Democratic primary for state rep in the 18th Suffolk District, comprising Allston, Brighton and part of Brookline, the City of Boston posted just such glitch — and it plays into the controversy over voter suppression aimed at Boston University students.

Here is what is posted on thier web site two days after the primary. Moran 1,129; Glennon 1,035; Schofield 842; Walsh 301. The problem was that they only included the results from Allston and Brighton, and did not include the totals from Brookline where Schofield pulled about 294 votes, beating the entire field by more than 2-1. This remain uncorrected at this writing.

The actual, but still unofficial numbers accepted by the campaigns show Moran winning a squeaker over Schofield 1200 to 1136. Greg Glennon got 1102 and Joe Walsh, 311.

So there’s a discrepancy, so what?

Well, some people say that the aggressive voter suppression campaign aimed at BU students would not have changed the outcome — and the the incomplete City of Boston figures tend to support that view. (Of course, we we will never know for sure, because you can’t count the votes of people who did not vote.) Some people say that because the voter supression did not affect the outcome, we shouldn’t worry about it. I disagree. I think this situation commands our attention whether the outcome is affected or not.

But let’s look at the numbers anyway. More than 200 students were newly registered to vote in the precinct since September, mostly due to the efforts to the BU College Dems. Mike Jervis said they did a registration drive in support of John Kerry, as well as the more recent drive to register students in time for the Democratic primary for the State Rep. from thier district. Those 200 plus are far more than the margin of difference of 64. There were 48 votes cast at the BU precinct on Tuesday — 44 of which went to Schofield. (Glennon got zero.) Additionally six provisional votes were cast.

Josh Sugarman says that Schofield will not contest the election, and has already thrown his support to Michael Moran. But he also says that students will be taking the struggle for voting rights forward. They deserve our support and encouragement.

Why, you may be wondering, of all the things one might be concerned about in the country, the world, and so on, am I so concerned about this? Let me explain.

I came of age during the war in Vietnam, when 18-21 year olds were denied the right to vote. But in reponse to the debate over the war, Republicans and Democrats agreed that if you were old enough to be drafted to fight and die for your country, you were old enough to have a say in electing public officials who will make the life and death decisions affecting our troops — and any other decisions for that matter. This made common sense to the American people, regardless of how they stood on the war, and the Constitution of the United States was amended to extend the right to vote to 18-21 year olds. The 26th Amendment reads in part: “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”

The unfair, and misapplied proof of residency standard at BU this week seems to me to be at least an abridgment if not an outright denial of the right of young people to vote. I know that the dust is still settling from the primary, but I hope we will start to hear from our elected officials, party officials, and from university administrators about what actions they will take to ensure that the right of students to vote “shall not be denied or abridged.”

All wars are fought primarily by young people. More than 50,000 Americans died in Vietnam, and many more were wounded. Today young men and women are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some 1500 have been killed. Many more have been wounded. The way things are going, the draft may very well be reinstituted and millions of young people will be eligible.

This is one very good reason why we should do everything we can to encourage the participation of young people in public life — not spread lies to discourage them. We must do everything we can to work out proof of residency rules to facilitate their participation — not selectively apply rules to deny and abridge their constitutional right to vote.

When we turn a blind eye to the demagoguery of Carr and McCauley, and ignore the actions of their henchmen, we are complicit in the degradation of the Constitution, and the Constitutional rights of our fellow citizens.

Silent complicity in this matter will compound the crisis of confidence in constitutional democracy looming on the horizon. Why should young people believe that voting matters when society and it’s institutions tolerate all this? Why should young people believe that the Democratic Party stands for anything, if it turns a blind eye to the bad behavior of party officers like Bart McCauley? (We already know that cheap electoral manipulations are the modus operandi of the Republicans in Florida and Ohio and elsewhere. I am also of the age that remembers when President Richard Nixon was forced out of office because of his personal involvement in “dirty tricks.” Carr chose his words carefully and well.)

Meanwhile, The Daily Free Press has further clarified McCauley’s attitude, and has begun to solicit the reaction of the Party. “‘They [students] don’t belong here,’ McCauley told The Daily Free Press in an interview Wednesday. McCauley said the BU College Democrats, who have spoken out against McCauley’s press release, should ‘get a life.’ ‘I’ve been working my ass off longer than these little babies have been living,’ he said. But Massachusetts Democratic Party officials said McCauley’s message was not aligned with that of the party. ‘[Students] are definitely allowed to vote,’ said Party spokeswoman Jane Lane. ‘We would oppose any effort to dampen their participation.’”

The story is still unfolding, and the scandal has not yet surfaced in the major media. But we know what Carr and McCauley said. And thanks to Blue Mass Group, the BU College Dems, the Daily Free Press (the BU student newspaper) and Josh Sugarman, we have some idea of what happened. State and local Democratic Party leaders and elected officials must act now. The BU students who were the victims of voter suppression need to know that the Democratic Party believes that the right to vote is sacred — whether the voters live in Florida, Ohio, or Brighton. They need to know that the election rules are fair, and will be even-handedly applied. In fact, we all need to know that, and we need to know it now.

Currently, few outside of the 18th Suffolk District and BU are even aware there is an issue, let alone a problem. Fewer still, are those who know there is a problem, and that there is anything they can do about it. Let’s not let the victims feel alone and powerless.

The BU College Democrats are outraged.

The BU Daily Free Press is outraged

A few bloggers are outraged.

How about you?

David at Blue Mass Group has further investigated the voter supresion tactics aimed at Boston Univeristy students in the Democratic primary for state representative in the 12th Suffolk District on Tuesday and concludes: “Students are legally entitled to vote in the district in which their dorm rooms are located; challenges to BU students may have been baseless.”

The right to vote is about as sacred a civil right as we have in the United States. Efforts to intimidate, or defraud citizens from exercising thier right to vote are repugnant — and often illegal — no matter who does it and to whom they do it. No excuses.

Good for Blue Mass Group for standing up for the rights of everyone.

UPDATE: The Boston University College Democrats are not taking this lying down. Links to coverage by the BU student newspaper The Daily Free Press, and other source material is available on the BU College Dems site.

It’s the first day of the post-Finneran era.

Tom Finneran who served for twenty-six years in the Massachusetts House, including eight as speaker, has finally been replaced in one of the three Democratic special election primaries to fill recent House vacancies.

Finneran’s successor, Linda Dorcena Forry, the daughter of Haitian immigrants, is a progressive where Finneran was conservative. And she epitomizes not only a new era of progressive Democratic reform in Massachusetts politics, but an opening to women and people of color in an institution that has been notable for relative lack of both. Since there is no opponent in the April 12th general election, Forry is the representative elect. The two Finneran loyalists who saw the writing on the wall and departed closely on the heels of their benefactor, also bear little ideological resemblance to their apparent successors.

Unofficial returns showing wins for Chris Speranzo in Pittsfield, and Mike Moran in the 18th Suffolk District, (comprising Allston, Brighton, and one precinct in Brookline) — while less dramatic than the transition from Finneran to Forry, certainly signal the acceleration of the progressive trend in the party. Both men oppose the death penalty, favor marriage equality, reproductive rights, caps on charter schools and much more. Speranzo faces a token Republican opponent, but Moran has to run against two unenrolled candidates one of whom, Tom O’Brien, is a current Assistant Attorney General and community activist.

According to unofficial results, in the 18th Suffolk race, Moran won by just 64 votes: Moran 1200; Schofield 1136; Glennon 1102; Walsh 311. (This text will be updated when official results are posted by the Secretary of the Commonwealth.)

These races follow the dramatic, high-profile victories of Carl Sciortino in Somerville, (the only candidate to defeat an incumbent last Fall; and a conservative Finneran lieutenant at that), and Peter Vickery, who first prevailed in a multicandidate field in the Democratic primary for Governors Council from western Mass, and went on to decisively win the general election to fill the vacancy created by the death of Eddie O’Brien, who had held the seat for 30 years. The election of Sciortino a young gay man, and Vickery who made increasing the racial diversity of the state judiciary a campaign theme, also highlight the desire of the voters for a departure from business as usual. Both candidates won with the active support of Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts (PDM), a statewide organization formed in the wake of Robert Reich’s 2002 campaign for governor. PDM is, among other things, an ongoing effort to build the capacity of progressive Democrats to win elections.

In these three special elections, PDM did not make formal endorsements, but many PDM activists got involved in the campaigns of Tim Schofield in the 18th Suffolk District, and Rhonda Serre running in the 3rd Berkshire District in Pittsfield.

As the unofficial returns rolled in on Tuesday night, I got on the phone with fellow PDM leaders Cathleen Cavell of Brookline, and statewide PDM chair Peter Dolan of Gloucester for an initial conversation about PDM’s role in the campaign. Here is some of what we discussed:

PDM activists got most involved in the Schofield race because there is an active chapter in the district. The role of PDM in that race says much about its growing influence and sheer electoral capacity. For starters, PDM members helped secure the enthusiastic endorsement of Robert Reich for Schofield. “I think the Reich endorsement helped give gravitas and credibility to Tim’s campaign early on,” Cavell noted. “Bob’s endorsement impressed a lot of progressive voters and organizations, and it demonstrated that Tim was a serious contender.” Cavell believes that Schofield’s decision to stake out a strong, progressive candidacy “was a very shrewd, as well as principled position for him to take” in a district that has been historically progressive, the recent elections of Brian Golden not withstanding. PDM and Schofield, she believes, “pushed the whole drift of the election to the left. We had a candidate who we encouraged to run as a true progressive, and every week he grew in his eloquence as a spokesperson for what it means to be a progressive Democrat.”

In addition to integrating the PDM effort with the campaign volunteer effort, “there were several specific PDM events,” she detailed: “The Brookline phone bank, a coffee in one of the Brookline apartment building, and canvassing with the candidate. And the Newton PDM group hosted a fundraiser.” Cavell’s house served as the precinct campaign headquarters, as ten Brookline PDM members did get out the vote (GOTV) and poll-watching. In the end, unofficial returns showed Schofield beating the rest of the field by more than 2-1 in their precinct, even as the overall campaign lost, apparently in a squeaker. Cavell reports that the results for Brookline were Schofield 294; Moran 71; Glennon 67; Walsh 10.

The PDM chapter on Cape Ann did a GOTV phone bank for Schofield on Monday night, making nearly 300 phone calls. Peter Dolan said that in addition to helping Tim, the phone bank “gave people a chance to learn, and to get some campaign experience between the main election cycles.”

“We use the elections as an opportunity to build political strength and relationships,” he added. “The phone bank was an opportunity to engage people who are not ordinarily a part of the political process.”

PDM’s model for “marshalling progressive support from around the state to focus on particular races” Dolan said, has proven not only necessary, but viable. “We need to understand the broader picture,” he stressed. “In order to build progressive strength in the legislature, we need to support progressive candidates wherever we find them. And by doing this,” he concluded, “we strengthen the progressives who are already in the legislature.”

While the PDM-supported candidates did not prevail in the two races where members got involved, Cavell and Dolan agree that the effort enhanced the knowledge and electoral skills of PDM activists, their working relationships with one another, their network of contacts, and PDM’s capacity to play a significant role in future contests around the state.

In an email to PDM members the next day, Dolan stressed that Moran also has strong progressive credentials, and that “Schofield has asked his supporters to give Moran their support in the general election next month… One final note,” he added, “the margin of victory in the Schofield race and the level of voter turnout (less than 25% of eligible voters) brings home once again the need for us to expand the universe of politically engaged progressives everywhere.”

Indeed, the closeness of this race was startling to many — including Michael Moran. The Boston Globe reports: ”I am honored and humbled by the support shown to me tonight,” Moran, who narrowly lost a race in 1998, said in a statement released by his campaign. ”I know what it’s like to lose by 89 votes. Now I know what it’s like to win by 64.”

Blue Mass Group has an important post about possible voter intimidation and disenfranchisement aimed at Boston University students in Tuesday’s Democratic primary for state representative in the 18th Suffolk District.

“According to Mike Jervis, VP for Communications of the BU College Democrats, by early this afternoon as many as several dozen students had faced challenges, and at least one or two were actually prevented from voting. Jervis said that as far as he knew, the students who were turned away were not allowed to vote provisionally or otherwise; they were simply sent home.”

These events come in the wake of a column by Howie Carr in The Boston Herald last week, which was substantially devoted to a small voter registration drive by BU students. Carr was worried that the students might be gay, and be supporters of the openly gay candidate Tim Schofield.” [I]f I were one of the other two major candidates,” Carr declared, “I’d be plotting a dirty trick for this weekend.”

On March 12th, a member of the Ward 22 Democratic Committee in Brighton, apparently also concerned that BU students might vote for Schofield, issued a press release alleging that students might be registered improperly, and that their registrations should be challenged by operatives of the candidates at the polls. Perhaps coincidentally, the Ward 22 Democratic Committee voted to endorse Schofield’s opponent, Mike Moran.

Attorney General Tom Reilly should take immediate action to determine if anyone was illegally denied the right to vote — or to clear the air — because something stinks.

Today is the Democratic Primary in the three special elections for State Representative in MA. In the 12th Suffolk District, the winner of the primary has no opponent, and so will assume office after the April 12th general election. In the 18th Suffolk District, the winner will face off with two unenrolled candidates. In the 3rd Berkshire, the winner of today’s Republican primary will go one-on-one with the winner of the Democratic primary.

For the rest, I leave it to fellow bloggers Blue Mass Group and NoHomissives to fill-in the details on how to get involved with last-minute campaign activities, and how to find out when and where to vote, if you don’t already know.

The most animated far-right group in Massachusetts since the Supreme Judicial Court ruled same sex marriage constitutional, has been the Article 8 Alliance, a project of the Waltham-based Parents Rights Coalition (PRC). The Alliance’s main project has been to seek the removal of the court majority in the Goodridge decision on marriage equality.

But last Fall, the Alliance distinguished itself with an ugly, antigay smear campaign against Democratic candidate for State Representative, Carl Sciortino, who went on to oust incumbent State Representative Vincent Ciampa (D-Somerville). Their featured tactic was a nasty pamphlet delivered to every home in the district. The Alliance was widely denounced, and Ciampa, their champion, lost decisively in the general election, after losing narrowly to Sciortino in the Democratic primary.

Typically, these groups issue distorted attacks on anything to do with homosexuality, but especially efforts by the public schools to try to teach about it and to promote tolerance and understanding. These distortions become further magnified in the heat of an election campaign.

Now, the PRC/Article 8 Alliance has issued a campaign flyer — a last-minute hit piece — which it is mailing and otherwise distributing around the 12th Suffolk District prior to Tuesday’s Democratic primary to fill the seat vacated by former House Speaker Tom Finneran. According to the Alliance, the Kerby Roberson campaign is collaborating in the distribution of the flyer.

“In our last email,” The Alliance reports on thier web site, “we asked for contributions to mail out the flyer. (Thousands of copies of the flyer were already printed.) We needed as much money as we could get by Thursday — less than 24 hours. We received about $450.00, which paid for about 1100 stamps and some other materials. This was given to the Roberson campaign, which immediately started mailing and passing out the flyers in the district!”

The flyer urges voters to support Roberson (“the one candidate you can trust”) and denounces Linda Dorcena Forry (“supported by homosexual extremists pushing their gay propaganda in the schools”) and Stacey Monahan (supports homosexual marriage. Will she represent you?”) The flyer ignores the other candidates.

“Kerby Roberson, according to the flyer, “is willing to protect our children from the homosexual fanatics in our public schools;” and “will vote to stop homosexual marriage, no matter what the powerful politicians say.”

The fear-mongering flyer asks: “Do you want a State Representative who SUPPORTS pushing homosexuality on your children in the public schools? Or a Rep. who will vote to stop it?”

There is plenty more ugliness in the flyer, which I will leave for others to dissect. In the meantime, voters in Dorchester, Mattapan, Hyde Park and Milton (Roberson’s home town), can expect to be seeing this hate literature around their neighborhoods, in their mailboxes, and perhaps even stuffed in their front doors.

Here we are in the closing days before the Democratic primary in the special election for three vacant seats for state representative. Along with the snow, there is a blizzard of last minute Get Out the Vote activities. Since I first wrote about the special elections in January, I have tried to underscore how these are not routine elections: they signal an historic shift shift in state politics. Following House Speaker Tom Finneran’s announcement last Fall, that he would retire, two Finneran allies also resigned. In November, the only incumbent to lose his seat in the House was Finneran ally, Vincent Ciampa, who lost to a young progressive, Carl Sciortino. The likely winners in the three special elections will also be far more progressive than their predecessors, and signal a strong, clear trend in Massachusetts politics.

One of the remarkable features of this set of special elections has been the emergence of progressive democratic bloggers. No one knows for sure how large or little a role we played, however we can certainly say that three blogs played prominent roles — at once as partisan supporters of candidates, but also providing otherwise hard-to-get information about the candidates, the races, the media coverage and more that would be useful to everyone. My fellow progressive democratic bloggers Blue Mass Group and NoHomissives have written about these races with insight and humor, as well as providing links and commentary on breaking news. We have all provided an additional dimension to news coverage and to information from the campaigns themselves, and engaged and encouraged citizens to participate in these important races. As I have noted previously, candidate Tim Schofield linked to blog coverage alongside clips from the mainstream press on his campaign web site, a first to my knowledge, in Massachusetts politics. But there was more. I personally received emails from Democratic activists trying to research the candidate fields, because information about many of the candidates was often hard to find. And although I clearly had my preferred candidates, in my main round-up on the races, I provided links to every campaign that had a web site that I could find, and shared what information I had with anyone who asked. [UPDATE: Candidate Chris Speranzo has posted a web site since I last checked.]

In the closing days, its worth checking in with my fellow bloggers:

NoHomissives has several recent posts on the 3rd Berkshire race in Pittsfield, and highlights how to help candidate Rhonda Serre in Pittsfield.

Blue Mass Group is worried about progressives splitting the vote (in this four-way race) between Schofield and Michael Moran — and urges progressives to go with Schofield.

In the same post, BMG also underscores the oddness and difficulty voters — or anyone — faces in finding out about the candidates: “I tried to learn more about Moran, but his website is a disaster — in particular, if you click on “News & Views,” you bring up blank page. Nor does his site list his endorsements or, really, anything about him other than the fact that he is running for state rep and the most barebones biographical information. Everything I could learn about Moran was from Googling him and coming up with media reports (mostly in the Phoenix) covering the race.”

Here is a sampler of some of the kinds of the end-of-the-campaign efforts I am hearing about — to get activists to help with the canvassing, visibilities, lit drops, and phone banking. I know that my sampler is far from comprehensive (hey its just the info that has come my way) but it is particularly interesting to me to see how some of the progressive organizations are helping the three candidates that have emerged as the progressive choices: Linda Dolcena Forry, Tim Schofield and, Rhonda Serre. (This is not to say that any of these groups are necessarily opposed to such candidates as Stacy Monahan, Michael Moran, Pam Malumphy and Chris Speranzo, its just that these were the choices that most — but not all — progressive groups and activists agreed on.)

Boston area activists from Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts (PDM) are helping Tim Schofield while PDM members in Western, Mass, such as Governor’s Councilor Peter Vickery, have been helping Rhonda Serre. Berkshires for Progressive Change is also mobilizing activists for Serre.

Democracy for Massachusetts has sent out emails to members encouraging members to help in specific GOTV activities posted on their web site on behalf of Serre, Schofield, and Forry. DFA nationally has also emailed members in MA with similar information.

All of the candidates in all of the races are undoubtedly doing similar such traditional GOTV activities in tandem with their most active supporters. For example, the AFL-CIO, in its weekly Labor Reader email to activists has called for help for its three endorsed candidates, Speranzo in Pittsfield, Monahan in the 12th Suffolk District, and Moran in the 18th Suffolk District. The Boston Central Labor Council is also doing phone banking for Moran and Monahan, and a labor lit drop for Moran.

Its all as it should be. Democracy in action. On Tuesday, we will have three Democratic candidates for the three vacant seats for state representative. The general election will be April 12th, and while the races will not be uncontested, the winner of the primary in each case will likely be the victor on April 12th.

They will be the fresh faces who never served with, or rather under, Tom Finneran. They will epitomize the post-Finneran era.

Last December, NBC and CBS played Scrooge to the message of welcome that the United Church of Christ (UCC) wanted to place on national television. The 1.3 million member Protestant denomination didn’ get thier ad on network TV, but it made national news as religious leaders and editorial writers — and bloggers — denounced the censorship. Consistency being the hobgoblin of small minds, when the UCC sought to place the same ads with the networks this spring, of course they refused to run the ad. But this time, in addition to airing the ad on cable networks and purchasing a mix of radio and print ads, the historic church took another major innovative step, and placed ads on the top 50 blogs, such as The Daily Kos, according to a story by United Church News, as well as such UCC-affiliated blogs as faithforward and Chuck Currie.

The UCC’s blogads feature still photos from the censored TV spot — inviting readers to “see the ad the networks didn’t want you to see.” The UCC expects to reach 1 million people in this way.

“Knowing little of blogs six months ago,” said Rev. Robert Chase, director of communications for the 1.3-million-member denomination, “we increasingly recognize that these folks are informational trend setters. If this ad campaign goes as planned, we’ll consider shifting even more to blogs and away from traditional media the next go around.”

“‘The blog’s emergence,’ Chase said, ‘can be equated to the invention of the printing press, the development of radio and television, or the availability of 24-hour cable news stations.”

“‘It’s a great investment of our advertising dollars,’ he said.”

“‘In December 2004, the earliest reports of the networks’ reject of the ad were written by bloggers,’” Chase pointed out. “Because of the attention that bloggers gave to the UCC’s story, the networks no longer could hide their censorship of an intentionally-welcoming, progressive religious message,” Chase said. ‘It’s something we’re seeing happen more and more – the most credible, engaging news reports are coming from bloggers.’”

“‘While many are still unaware of it,’ Chase continued, ‘the blogosphere has emerged as the next great revolution in journalism. In the tradition of this nation’s earliest pamphleteers, bloggers are sharing news and information as a mark of a truly free society, not as something that can be controlled and manipulated by multi-national corporations.’”