Julie Hamos' Campaign Calls Me to Insult Me Into Supporting Her, But She Abandoned Progressives Like Me For The Script A Long Time Ago

Sometimes I really wonder about these campaigns. You'd think that they'd flag a name on their list when it's someone known to be extraordinarily publicly outspoken. That's what I would do if I were them, but apparently, the Julie Hamos campaign doesn't think that's important. I'm just a number on a list that someone needs to get through tonight. That's ok. I'm not trying to say I'm so important. I'm not any more important than the average voter. I'm just more likely to be versed on the issues and write about the call.

This call is a good illustration of how not to phone bank. One of Hamos' phone bankers just called me about an hour ago. I told the caller up front that I was voting for Dan Seals hoping she'd just say goodbye and leave me alone. I have more important things to worry about today. But no. She didn't want to let it go and asked me why. When I tried to tell her why, she interrupted me. I don't like to be asked a question and then interrupted when I try to answer it and I don't like candidates uninterested in what a voter has to say. But this is primary season, and what I'm looking for doesn't matter. This woman was determined to get through her script no matter what. The call ended with the phone banker telling me that I'm ignorant on Hamos's position on the issues and that I was somehow a lesser person for not wanting to be educated by a phone banker's script. I don't think that's the way to turn a non-supporter around. However, it is a really good way to invite a blog post.

I started out wanting to like Hamos. Dan had run twice, so to be perfectly honest, I was looking for someone new. Hamos seemed like a possibility because she was a state rep and knew several people I knew and liked. Sadly, I didn't stay impressed with Hamos for very long. First, there was the Mikva endorsement debacle. I never blamed Hamos for using her family relationship to wrangle the endorsement away from Dan. Politics is a game of relationships and is usually played dirty as Hamos had played it. However, when she went around saying that Dan had misrepresented the prior endorsement, she lost me. I actually called Hamos' campaign manager to tell her I wasn't happy with what went down and the response was that the story was in the paper, so it must be true. Oh please. The story was a reprint of a Hamos press release. The whole thing reminded me of Mark Kirk's press release as news brand of politics.

Hamos came out touting her state record on consumer issues and transportation and my original hope was that she would run to the left. There was some theoretic support for my hope because her Evanston reputation was to the left of her current congressional opponents. My wish didn't come true. Hamos quickly moved to the right to run in the district. I can only imagine that's what her handlers told her to do and she's following their advice. I'm sick of political handlers and candidates abandoning principle to take a perceived safer position. That doesn't bring the reform I'm seeking.

So, where is Hamos on the issues that are important to me?

First, she's in favor of the current health care bill, and as a dutiful supporter of the Obama agenda, the words "single payer" or "Medicare for all" don't leave her lips. I don't know how she can claim to be a supporter of women and choice while supporting a bill with the harsh anti-choice provisions of both the House and Senate versions. I don't know how she can claim to be a supporter of consumers while supporting legislation that is nothing more than corporate welfare made complex in the hope that we don't notice.

Further, Hamos backs the Administration's escalation of the war in Afghanistan. The claim is that she'll work with President Obama on "a clear strategy to end the war in Afghanistan." I don't know what to make of that when all Obama's underlings from the generals to the state department have made it clear that there is no rush to end the war. Hamos doesn't mention the problem of corruption in the Afghan government or the disorganization and questionable loyality of the Afghan army. She simply passed off concerns by articulating her trust in General McChrystal. McChrystal was involved in the Pat Tillman coverup, and as for his Afghanistan credentials, he now says that the tide is turning and the surge is working, but many doubt that analysis. McChrystal is part of the war spin machine that pushes stories claiming early good results. This is the sort of thing that gave us the fake Jessica Lynch story and the fake Pat Tillman as hero stuff when he was really killed by friendly fire. The good press is supposed to make us feel good about wars we shouldn't be in. Whether or not the conditions they claim exist doesn't matter because the war sales pitch is more important than the actual status of the war. I was hoping with Obama's win and the end of the Bush era, we'd be done with war sales pitches, but Obama has decided to keep the war machine rolling on and Hamos is content to cheerlead. That's not what I think members of Congress should be doing.

Then, there's the Israel issue that is usually a game changer in this district. Mark Kirk won on it for years despite the fact that all his other positions were diametrically opposed to Jewish values and now he seeks the nod from Sarah Palin who wants to move us all to Israel to start the Rapture and eventually kill us. Hamos doesn't have the religious right baggage that Kirk has, but I'm still uncomfortable with the way she goes about touting her Israel credentials. She has a pretty strong video on her site that's also being sent around by email. It goes through her family's struggle and losses during the Holocaust. It's basicially a plea to vote for her because she had more relatives die in the Holocaust than her opponents. I don't know about that as a political strategy. It bothers me that the dead are being used in such an intentionally emotional way. I'd rather hear about some solid strategy suggestions to help bring peace in the middle east and stop the cycle of poverty, unemployment and displacement that increases the terrorists' ranks. While I don't think we should ever forget the Holocaust, if that's all we're talking about in 2010, how do we ever take action to make sure it doesn't happen again to Jews or anyone else?

With Hamos' reputation on consumer issues, I was really expecting something from her on banking and investment regulation, but what I see is a lot of ownership society. Hamos is not talking about the responsibilities of the folks over at BOA, Goldman Sachs or AIG. She's talking about the responsibilities of the average schlep on the street. Her solution to the real estate, credit and investment crises is more consumer counseling and foreclosure delay, but does not support programs that would include a reduction of principal debt. So, basically, Hamos is not in favor of making the lenders and securitizers accountable for their bad lending practices.

The phone banker didn't want to discuss any of this with me. It wasn't in her script, the script I was supposed to shut up and listen to. I won't apologize for not being interested in the script. I've heard it all before. I'm not looking for a candidate who will rubber stamp the Obama Administration and dance around issues to fake up some reform while keeping the status quo. I want someone who will challenge both the Administration and status quo from the progressive perspective. Hamos looks to me like she wants to get in and blend. We don't have the luxury to settle for blending. I want to see some star qualities and no phone banker with a bland script is going to convince me that Julie Hamos has star qualities. If she ever had them, she's apparently given them up for the script the strategists and pundits tell her is a sure win.

I'm probably going to exercise my right to early voting tomorrow and Julie Hamos isn't going to get my vote. The caller should have taken advantage of the out I offered her right up front. Her script was never going to change my mind. A little listening on her part might have made me more sympathetic to her cause, but politicians love to tell us that they know better. I heard that from Mark Kirk for years and I'm still waiting for those WMD he said he personally knew about to turn up.