On May 12, 2019 the delegates to the California Democratic party received a post by Women’s Caucus chair Christine Pelosi announcing their May Newsletter came out with the “CADEM WOMEN’S: Chair Debate.” However, the Candidates represented when one clicked on the link were limited to Kimberly Ellis, Rusty Hicks and Daraka Larrimore-Hall (in alphabetical order.)
There were four Chair candidates omitted: Lenore Albert, Mike Katz-Lacabe, Rita Ramirez, and Mike Saifie (again, in alphabetical order). Their omission was not mentioned in the Newsletter, either.
Many of our local readers know candidate Lenore Albert because she is from Orange County and those in the know, know she was instrumental in helping our county successfully ride the Big Blue Wave in 2018 where we flipped so many seats from red to blue. Not everyone loves Lenore but one cannot question her commitment to Democratic party values.
Candidate Albert didn’t let this missive from the Women’s caucus pass quietly in the night. She made several good points in doing so.
First, the campaign for party Chair are not well regulated which means Delegates can exclude candidates from participating in endorsements or even speaking to their group. She has previously pledged to support a change in the Rules to require all Chair candidates to fully disclose their donations (in detail) and expenses publicly. Today she pledged to support a change in the Rules to require all events hosted by a Delegate or an official wing or entity of the CDP including any one of its subsidiaries to invite all Chair candidates to apply for their endorsement, speak, or debate giving each candidate equal time.
After Ms. Albert sent out her email to the delegation, Christine Pelosi posted a screenshot from Anita Narayana dated April 29, 2019 showing all candidates were blind copied with an email (only the header is attached – no subject line or substance). However, Ms. Albert checked her inbox and could not find an email from Ms. Narayana on that date or any other date near that time frame.
Christine Pelosi characterized Ms. Albert’s support for a Rules Change as a “nastygram.” Another curious missive is that Ms. Albert is actually a member of the Women’s Caucus. Albert has demonstrated that she understands that the party can change to be more inclusive and some of those screaming lack of inclusiveness are the ones holding the door shut tight.
Lenore Albert asked if there is room in the party for a white woman to lead at the top, noting she grew up in a bi-racial family and is disabled which would most likely make her the first disabled female Chair if elected to the CDP. Until the party wakes up and stops allowing the deep pockets established in this party to choose who will be the next Progressive candidate to back, the progressives will never have a voice.
Lenore Albert actually has helped the working people and without the party’s influence or help. For example, in 2011 she stopped over 1,000 homes from foreclosure sale.
She is the only candidate running for Chair that owes no one in this party a favor.
I support Democracy! ALL candidates should be included. I support Lenore Albert and her pledge to change Rules within the party that continue fostering an environment of exclusion. I look forward to a Chair who will be inclusive of ALL. I stand with Lenore and support a great woman who is fearless in her fight for democracy for all.
Poor Lenore! Sideswiped by her own crazy tilt-a-wheel again. Is she still not a lawyer?
She still practices Federal law while challenging the illegal attacks by the California State Bar on consumer advocates like her, which Federal courts are not recognizing because of their illegality. Why don’t you use your name when making false attacks like this?
Is she “practicing Federal law” in California? If so, she’s got more trouble coming her way.
Thanks for pointing this out. Sounds like they want to keep someone beholden to the establishment in charge of the party. I understand at least Rusty and Karen are beholden to real estate interests that count on them to be ineffective at dealing with affordable housing and homelessness, since solutions to those issues conflict with those interests’ bottom line.
Lenore is the only candidate with a strong track record of opposing those interests. That’s the real reason they badmouth her all the time.
Thanks for pointing this out. Sounds like they want to keep someone beholden to the establishment in charge of the party. I understand at least Rusty and Karen are beholden to real estate interests that count on them to be ineffective at dealing with affordable housing and homelessness, since solutions to those issues conflict with those interests’ bottom line.
Lenore is the only candidate with a strong track record of opposing those interests. That’s the real reason they badmouth her all the time, and try to shut her up.
Lenore was invited to the Women’s Caucus to campaign, but she didn’t show up. Since she is a member of the Women’s caucus, she KNEW there was a meeting and chose not to show up, even as a member. She was invited to other events and her response to organizers was that she was “busy”. There is a private Facebook group for Delegates and all of the truths come out on that page, complete with screenshots. You seem to have conveniently left out of your article that also included in that email Lenore sent out, was a claim by her that she is being kept from a position of power because she is WHITE! Yeah, you read that correctly. Lenore’s biggest obstacle is herself.
Note for Greg Diamond. Your stroke must really affect your ability to read. This comment was posted the day it was sent. You owe me a retraction that it was never published. I also have hundreds of pages of Ellis financials. Really, get a clue Hodor.
Dan, your blind spot with regard to Lenore Albert is an embarrassment to any “journalistic integrity” you hope to convey and, more importantly, an embarrassment to the Party. And, while I’m no fan of Greg Diamond, your repeated vicious swipes at his medical condition are abusive and uncalled for.
Well, he erroneously reported I didn’t approve a comment and that details on the coffee shop meeting weren’t revealed when they clearly were. Perhaps you ought to admonish Greg for “repeated and vicious swipes” which he often does to people he doesn’t care for.
If you can provide me evidence that he mocks people’s health conditions; I will do so. But you ignored my larger point that you have been carrying water for Lenore Albert LONG after others have seen her for what she is; a disturbed, narcissistic, paranoid, litigious hypocrite who has cyber-bullied others for YEARS and yet continues to play the victim card. Let it go Dan.