Hillary Clinton was on Anti-Union Wal-Mart Board!

The story is here. Let's see now: Hillary Clinton has taken more money from big Pharma and HMOs than any other candidate; more money from war-profiteering defense companies than any other candidate, including any Republican candidate; she stood silent and raked in cash while Wal-Mart suppressed unions. Convicted donor Hsu was a major contributor. Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News, has held fundraisers for her.

So, tell me, just how is Hillary Clinton going to standup to Right and bring us progressive change? There's an old saying, "You gotta dance with those who brought you."

Call all your friends in Super Tuesday states and urge them to vote for Barack Obama. Then send him some cash.

Edwards is Out

Fmr. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), the most improved candidate for president in 4 years, as Normon Solomon rightly called him, has left the race. He announced this decision, as he announced his decision to run and put the poor first, in the 9th Ward of New Orleans, still devastated from Hurrican Katrina--over 2 years ago. I thought Edwards should drop out after Nevada because he could no longer win and because I was afraid he would siphon off progressive votes from Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). Edwards clearly drove the progressive agenda in many ways (especially since the media silenced Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who is now struggling to retain his seat in the House). Obama's platform and rhetoric have taken on many of Edwards' themes--and I think it has made Obama a stronger candidate against Clinton and a candidate more worthy of the office of the presidency. Obama clearly has both progressive and cautious tendencies (as do most of us) and a mix of advisors. I think Edwards gave him the courage to keep pushing in the progressive direction--and I hope he continues to do so now that Edwards has dropped out.

There are rumors of a movement in the Obama campaign to select Edwards for Atty Gen. should Obama win the presidency. I hope they are true. Edwards would be a great Atty Gen. and would bring his record as a trial lawyer and his strong pro-labor and pro-civil rights agenda to that office. You can bet your bottom dollar that he would not hesitate to call waterboarding torture and to prosecute anyone who tries it!

Whatever happens, I wish the best for John and for Elizabeth who is still struggling with breast cancer. Keep fighting for the poor, John--in whatever you do.

Kentucky Political Filings

Yesterday was the KY deadline for candidates for political office to file to run for an office this year. The surprise news was the unexpected decision of U.S. Rep. Ron Lewis (R-KY) of the 2nd District to not seek reelection. Democrats came close to unseating him in '06 and, now that this is an open seat, may claim it this year--especially if the presidential campaign is going in the Democrats' favor (the "coattail effect"). The juicy details of all the races are found at the Louisville Courier-Journal. Here are the races with a few comments:

U.S. House of Representatives by District (Kentucky has 6 U.S. Congressional Districts--currently 4 are held by Republicans and 2 by Democrats).

1. Rep. Ed Whitefield (R) of Hopkinsville is the incumbent. He is being challenged by Heather A. Ryan of Paducah (D). As reported by Bluegrass Roots, Ryan and her daughter, Heaven, were targets of Sen. Mitch McConnell's wrath when she dared to ask McConnell about the war in Iraq on camera. Well, some folk don't just curl up and go away. Ryan is now challenging hard right McConnell/Bush stooge, Whitefield. It will be a tough campaign: The first district is conservative and Whitefield is well-heeled and connected. But Ryan's challenge could become a cause celebre' for KY progressives. Go get him, woman! We got your back!
2. As mentioned, Rep. Ron Lewis (R) is not seeking reelection. Kentucky Republicans are furious, because Lewis tried to let only one person, his handpicked successor, Daniel London (R) of Shepherdsville know. But one other Republican, Brett Guthrie of Bowling Green, found out and got his papers filed in time. So, there will be a GOP primary on 20 May for the open Lewis seat. Whoever wins will face David E. Boswell (D) of Owensboro in November. The open seat and the GOP primary mean that this is an excellent chance for a pickup for Democrats.
3. John Yarmuth (D) is the incumbent--having done incredible things in his frosh term in Congress and winning awards and notice nationally. The 3rd District is the most liberal district in the Commonwealth and it was an aberration that rightwing nut-job Anne Northup (R) won and kept that seat for a decade. As I reported yesterday, she wants her old job back. But, before Queen Anne can challenge Yarmuth in November, she will have to face stiff competition from 3 other Republicans who don't think that seat is her birthright: Chris "I Killed the Library Tax" Thieneman, a Lousville developer and GOP activist against all things reasonable (like good libraries!), UPS pilot Bob Devore of Louisville and someone named Corley Everett of Louisville. The contest between Thieneman and Northup has already included smears and charges of threats by Northup and McConnell--so it looks nasty. That should make it easier for Yarmuth to keep his job. His race against Northup was hard and close, but Louisville has loved the job he has done.
4. Incumbent Geoff Davis (R) of Fort Mitchell is facing 2 primary challengers, G. E. Puckett (R) of Flemingsburg and Warren O. Stone (R) of Independence. I expect Davis to survive these challenges, but they could weaken him for his contest against Michael Kelly (D) of LaGrange.
5. Alas! Incumbent nut job Hal Rogers (R) of Somerset is running unopposed! Way to drop the ball, here, Kentucky Democratic Party! In a year in which Republicans are dropping like flies, we waste an opportunity to challenge one of the most fanatical Bushies?? Arggh!
6. Ben Chandler (D) of Versailles is a conservative "Blue Dog" Democrat. He's not the most progressive Dem we have, but, he is more progressive than either of the 2 GOP challengers he'll face: Jon Larson (R) of Lexington and TonyMcCurdy of Frankfort.

U.S. Senate:

Obstructionist-in-Chief/Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R), the shame of the Commonwealth, is up for reelection. He has a huge campaign fund and has buried many a good opponent over the years. But, this year he's vulnerable: His approval rating is below 50% despite running ads that try to tout his record--and much of that disapproval has come from his role in blocking the Senate from ending Bush's war in Iraq. He also has repeatedly prevented the Senate from getting enough votes to override Bush's veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program expansion (great family values, Mitch!), blocked measures that would improve veterans' healthcare and would force Bush to keep soldiers home for longer periods between deployments to Iraq. Unfortunately, our best chance to Ditch Mitch was if very popular State Auditor Crit Luallen (D) had challenged him without a primary. She declined. Our next best opportunity remains the challenge by Louisville attorney and Iraq war vet (and opponent), Lt. Col. Andrew Horne (R), who may still pull this off. Unfortunately, the KDP, Gov. Beshear, and DNC have not gotten behind Horne. They've recruited Louisville businessman Greg Fischer (D) (who has previously contributed money to Anne Northup!!), and millionaire Bruce Lunsford (D), who has twice run for governor and been defeated--and who is a DINO who isn't that much more progressive than McConnell. Then there are the lesser candidates: Michael Cassaro (D), an M.D. from Prospect; James Rice of Campbellsville; David Wylie of Harrodsburg; Kenneth Stepp of Manchester; and perpetual candidate David L. Williams of Glasgow. So, Horne has to face a crowded field (none of whom would step up until he filed to challenge McConnell!) in the Democratic primary just to get to challenge McConnell--who MUST be laughing himself to death at the way this greatly reduces his risk of being Ditched! Fortunately, his approval is so low in Kentucky, now, that he faces a GOP challenger: Daniel Esseck of Whitely County. I don't know much about Esseck--but I hope he keeps McConnell on his toes until Horne can go after him for November. Make no mistake: Ditching Mitch is so important that I will support whomever the Democratic nominee is. But I remain convinced that Horne is our best shot at Ditching Mitch McConnell.

There are a number of races for the state legislature, but as Bluegrass Report notes, far too many Republican incumbents are running unopposed.

13 Louisville Metro Council seats are up for grabs.

So, the good news is that KY is nowhere near as "red" or Republican dominated as in '00 or '04. However, our struggle to turn "blue"--Democratic and progressive--is still uphill. We are deep purple. Hopefully, after November, we'll be a lighter purple--because we have serious problems to address. We have to rebuild the KDP--and the only way to do that is through grassroots campaigns.

Governor's Budget: Deep Cuts, Shared Pain

Well, our previous governor, Ernie Fletcher (R-KY) royally screwed the commonwealth with his budget-busting corruption. New Gov. Steve Beshear has tried to spread out the pain of an "austere budget" throughout the Commonwealth of KY, but there is no doubt this is going to hurt.

The full coverage in the Louisville Courier-Journal is here. The highlights (or lowlights):

• Kentucky public universities will have funding cut by 12% this year to $1.19 billion. Next year there will be a nearly 1% increase to $1.2 billion. This will deeply hurt the advances in public higher education that were made by Gov. Paul Patton (D-KY) before the Fletcher admin. and it is sure to mean more tuition increases--putting higher education further out of reach for many.
• Public schools (primary and secondary) will have a 0.8 % cut this year to $3.79 billion with 0.6% of that increased next year to $3.82 billion.
• Social services (food stamps, homeless shelters, assisted living, mental health, etc., etc.) will be cut by a whopping 8% this year to $652 million with only a 1% increase in the second year to $659 million--and KY already falls way behind in our assistance to the most vulnerable among us.
• Medicaid will, fortunately, see a 3% INCREASE this year to $1.23 billion (much less than expected, but at least no cuts) and a 7.7% increase the following year to $1.32 billion.
• State employees, whose salaries have been frozen for years, will get 2% raises in each year of the administration. (Now if only Metro Louisville will do the same and renew the city employees' contract. My wife hasn't seen a pay increase in 3 years, despite rising costs. Our wonderful mayor has had city employees working without contract for nearly 2 years.)
• Infrastructure projects apparently will be funded through bonds.

The cuts in the budget wouldn't have to be so deep if Gov. Beshear would simply rethink his "no new taxes" view (what is he, a Republican?) and increase taxes on tobacco (3rd lowest in the nation) and alcohol in order to raise needed revenue for essential services. He is literally gambling everything on his plan to push through an amendment to the state constitution to allow casino gambling throughout the Commonwealth. I doubt that will pass and, even if it does, our experiences with the state lottery show that the promise of using gambling to fund education is illusory. Besides such promotion of addictive behavior amounts to a regressive tax on those who can least afford it (the poor who buy lottery tickets weekly from money that should go to groceries, rent, etc. in desperate attempts to escape to wealth) and the resulting social problems associated with pushing gambling addictions are well known.

I know that Beshear campaigned on casinos, but, like many others, I voted for him in spite of this, not because of it. I voted for him because he was not the corrupt Ernie Fletcher. We need a grassroots campaign to push Beshear to raise tobacco and alcohol taxes for a less "austere" budget--especially for education and social services. Balancing budgets on the backs of the poor and our children is immoral and will further undue the progress made by the Patton admin. Gov. Beshear needs to be reminded that he was elected to undue the harm of the Fletcher admin.--not increase it. True, Fletcher, not Beshear, caused this mess. But this is not the right response.

DINO Lunsford Joins KY Dem Senate Primary

The incompetence of the Kentucky Democratic Party never ceases to amaze me. And the DSCC and Chuck Schumer (D-KY) are just as bad. They've decided to back millionaire Bruce Lunsford (D-KY), a real DINO (Democrat in Name Only) instead of Andrew Horne in the battle to Ditch Mitch McConnell! Idiots! This is the strategy that kept us with DINO Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) who is campaigning for John "I Love War" McCain in Florida, when we could have had progressive Ned Lamont in the Senate for us right now! The DSCC also, as Bluegrass Roots notes, backed established DINOs in place of Jon Tester and Jim Webb. The GOP would have retained Montana and Virginia in '06 (and, thus, control of the Senate) had not Montana and Virginia grassroots Dems worked overboard to give us Tester and Webb as frosh Senators.

Now, it's KY's turn. Ignore the KDP and DSCC folks. Even if Lunsford could beat McConnell, he wouldn't be much better. Let's work our collective butts off for Andrew Horne and both Ditch Mitch and get a real, progressive populist Democrat in the Senate for KY! Show Horne some monetary love, today! (As soon as we win the White House and a 60 vote majority in the Senate this November, there's some housecleaning to do. We need to replace Chuck Schumer (D-NY) with a DSCC head who doesn't fear grassroots campaigns and replace Reid (D-NV) with Chris Dodd (D-NY) as Majority Leader so we get someone with backbone as Leader.)

We need progressive populists, not party machine hacks. We need Andrew Horne for U.S. Senate!

More California Latino Leaders for Obama

California for Obama: Latino Leaders Endorse Obama
Uploaded by ObamaCA

There is no question that H.R. Clinton has a leg up on the Latino vote in CA--and the endorsement of the United Farmworkers, the union of migrant workers led by the great Cesar Chavez and Delores Huerta sure doesn't hurt her. But this video and other factors lead me to think that Obama could win a significant portion of the Latino vote in CA. Enough to win the state outright? Maybe, maybe not--but I think he will get a significant number of the CA delegates. Thank God we Dems don't use "winner take all" primaries like the GOP, or non-establishment candidates would never have a chance.

P.S. See this excellent article by progressive activist/scholar Paul Rogat Loeb on the way that the Clintons keep trying to change the rules to win this campaign. The article is aptly titled, "It's Her Party and She'll Do What She Wants." Funny-when the GOP did that to her, she rightly called "foul." Now, she's as corrupt as the "vast rightwing conspiracy" she once railed against.

It's Official: Northup Wants Her House Seat Back!

Anne Northup (R-KY), that Bush & McConnell rightwing HACK that we in the 3rd District spent 10 years getting OUT of office in '06 will try to take her job back from our wonderful Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY), who has been one of the best frosh Reps. ever and has kept all of his campaign promises! This could be tough. Yarmuth beat Northup by less than 6,000 votes and a district that switches national parties is most vulnerable to switching back at the very next election.



Fortunately, before Queen Anne (who also lost a primary challenge to our unloved former Gov., Ernie Fletcher(R), last year--only a few months after losing her seat to Yarmuth!) can take on Yarmuth again, she will have what looks to be a bruising primary on May20. She will have to face Chris "I Am the Library Tax Killer" Thieneman and UPS pilot Bob Devore, Jr. As today's C-J article makes clear, Thieneman and Northup have no love for each other--so, Yarmuth can wait until they shred each other and pick off the winner. 20 May is also the KY primary in the U.S. presidential elections, so, if the Democratic nominee is still in doubt, this could be a huge motivator for 3rd District Dems to get out the vote for Yarmuth.

Jefferson County Tries New Plan to Keep Schools Desegregated

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, used the language of the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision which ended legal segregation in public schools to strike down affirmative action by busing and hasten the de facto resegregation of public schools that has been happening across the nation since the early 1980s. Jefferson County public schools were the test case. Since then, the school board has been trying to come up with a new plan that will keep racial/ethnic/ and income diversity in our schools and still pass constitutional muster with this rightwing Supreme Court. Today, they unveiled a new plan, based on geography and income that they hope will accomplish the same goals. It is not a simple plan because all simple plans, such as only using neighborhood assignments, simply hasten resegregation. Now comes the time for public hearings and then final approval on 12 May. I hope it works.

One can see the full plan, including, maps and Q & A in today's Louisville Courier-Journal. If this works and is as accepted by the community as our previous school assignment method, I hope it will be adopted across the nation. The resegregation of our public schools is part of the regression in this nation which keeps a large African-American and Latino underclass. It must end. I benefitted from going to integrated schools (some of them where I was the minority) and so have my children. We live in one of the few neighborhoods in Louisville where there is noticeable racial/ethnic diversity--but it is far from Sesame Street perfection. If the schools were to go to strict neighborhood assignment, my kids would have much more mono-cultural friendships and education experiences--and that would be tragic. We need to be helping our children live in an increasingly multi-cultural 21st C. world--not reverting to the 1950s! Let's all pray this works.

Is Obama Winning Endorsements from "Red State Democrats?"

The Carpetbagger Report (an excellent liberal political blog) thinks such a trend may be emerging. Sen. Clinton has the most endorsements by Dem. governors (10), but only 2 of them(Arkansas and Ohio) come from "red states," i.e. states that have been dominated by Republicans in the recent past and/or which G.W. Bush carried in '00 and/or '04. By contrast, Obama has only 5 gubanatorial endorsements (Mass., Ill., Virginia, Wisconsin, Arizona)--and, now, a 6th, Kansas (a story we'll return to below), but 3 of them: Virginia, Arizona, and, now, Kansas are red states. That's not much of a lead, but what about Senators: HR Clinton, the establishment candidate, has 11 Senate endorsements, but only 2 (Evan Bayh of Indiana and Bill Nelson from Florida) come from red states. Obama, by contrast, has 8 Senate endorsements with 4 from red states (North Dakota's Kent Conrad, South Dakota's Tim Johnson, Missouri's Claire McCaskill, and Nebraska's Ben Nelson).

If this is a trend, what does it mean? Well, it COULD mean that red state Democrats believe that Obama has a better chance than Clinton not just of winning the White House, but of expanding the Democratic Party--expanding the map, as his whole campaign has tried to do. That would be significant: Could it be that red state Dems are saying, especially in states that are or seem to be moving toward becoming, swing states, "If you want to have a chance to win this state in November, nominate Obama rather than Clinton?" Some, like Claire McCaskill (D-MO) have indicated as much in their endorsements.

The trend seems to be continuing: Kansas' Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) is a rising star. She is scheduled to give the Democratic response tonight to the Smirking Chimp, er, Bush's State of the Union address. Then, later this week, she is expected to endorse Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) for president. Except for superstar politicians like Ted Kennedy (and even then, his campaigning for Obama is more important than his endorsement alone), political endorsements in primaries don't mean all that much. But if there is a trend developing of red state Democratic pols endorsing Obama, it could be far more significant.

Sebelius, like Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-AZ), is a rising star, too, and her endorsement signals to women that it is okay to vote for Obama--which could be very important in swing states.

Finally, coming this week, Sebelius' endorsement continues the "Big Momentum" for Obama coming out of SC.

The national polls still show Clinton with a 12 point lead over Obama--but that lead was over 20 points a week ago and nearly 30 points for most of a year. What do you think, Hill? Are objects in your rear view mirror closer than they appear??

Update: As expected, Gov. Sebelius, endorsed Obama, today. She won reelection with 58% of the vote in a state where only 27% are registered Democrats--a state which hasn't voted for a Democratic president since LBJ. (Sebelius thinks Obama could change that this year more than Clinton.) Sebelius just finished as head of the National Governor's Association--a post once held by Bill Clinton. Obama is holding a rally in KS, today.

Is There a "Historic Latino Reluctance" to Vote for Black Candidates?

Not according to Gregory Rodriquez of the L.A. Times. Is "the Nevada Phenomenon" a real worry for Obama or a Clintonian myth? We will see. Obama got quite a bit of Latino support in the Illinois State Senate and then in his race for the U.S. Senate. There may have been numerous reasons for his lack of said support in Nevada (e.g., the negative ad in Spanish put out by Unite Here which he did not rebuke and which seems to have backfired, or the voter intimidation that Bill Clinton did, etc.) that had little to do with "historic Black/Brown tensions" so pontificated endlessly by white talking heads. The number of Latino endorsements for Obama has been less than for Clinton, but growing--and Obama doesn't have to win them all or even a majority. He has to do better with Latinos than he did in Nevada--somewhere in the 35%-45% region--in order to remain competitive. I think he can do this.

I think the Clintons are trying to pit Southern whites and Latinos against African-Americans in order to defeat Obama--and then she magically expects the rainbow coalition to coalesce again for November. It's a dangerous strategy and so small minded.

Horne Calls for Filibuster on Warrantless Wiretapping and Telecom Immunity

In his announcement of his race for the U.S. Senate, Louisville attorney and Iraq war vet, Lt. Col. Andrew Horne (Ret.) gave the dramatic line, "While [Sen. Minority Leader/Obstructer-in-Chief]Mitch McConnell carred Bush's water on Iraq, I carried a rifle in Iraq." A powerful line, but I am glad to see that it is more than mere rhetoric. Today, Horne announced his support for Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT)'s efforts to filibuster Bushco's attempts to further trample on our Constitutional rights by giving permanent legitimacy to warrantless wiretapping and retroactive immunity to those telecom companies that cooperated with this un-Constitutional program while it was also still in violation of the FISA statute. (FISA= Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1974). FISA was enacted in the wake of Watergate's revelations about how abusive government surveillance had become--using fear of Communism and the Vietnam War to spy on civil rights organizations, peace groups, opposition newspapers, and all U.S. citizens who exercised rights of dissent. FISA made the govt. get warrants from the secret FISA court before spying on U.S. citizens.

Bushco, including McConnell, argue that new tech and the "war on terror" means this should no longer be necessary. Don't believe them. I am glad to know that presidential hopefuls Sens. Clinton and Obama will be here to support Dodd in this vote, as they were not previously. This is more important than campaigning. This is protecting our freedom.

Don't be misled by McConnell's fear tactics: FISA does NOT expire on 01 Feb.! All that expires is the stupid law passed in '06 that "expanded" FISA to permit warrantless wiretapping without any safeguards or conditions. McConnell and the GOP have blocked attempts to update the law for an age of terrorism in ways that still protect our liberties. So, we stop the Bushies NOW, here. If Feb. 1 expires without a new law, all that will happen is that the old FISA goes back into effect--you know, the law that Bush and the telecom companies broke with their warrantless wiretapping. And the lawsuits against these companies go forward--so that at least SOME accountability happens for trifling with the Constitution.

Three cheers for Sen. Dodd (whom I hope will replace the spineless Sen. Reid (D-NV) as Majority Leader) and 3 cheers for Andrew Horne. Show Horne some love by sending his campaign some cash, today.

Toni Morrison Endorses Obama

Toni Morrison, the only African-American woman to win the Nobel Prize for Literature, wrote an article in a 1998 issue of The New Yorker in which she (in)famously called Bill Clinton, "America's first black president" because of both the way he understood African-Americans and the similar way that the media treated him and black politicians. It was a comment that Bill Clinton (and some white media) took FAR too seriously--more than it was intended and more than African-Americans ever took it. Well, now, Toni Morrison has endorsed Barack Obama.

In giving her reasons, she writes that she admires Hillary Clinton but that gender has little to do with her reasons for that admiration. And she says the same about Obama's race--that she would not endorse him just because he's black or "makes me proud." What are her reasons:

"In thinking carefully about the strengths of the candidates, I stunned myself when I came to the following conclusion: that in addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don't see in other candidates. That something is a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom.

"Our future is ripe, outrageously rich in its possibilities. Yet unleashing the glory of that future will require a difficult labor, and some may be so frightened of its birth they will refuse to abandon their nostalgia for the womb.

"There have been a few prescient leaders in our past, but you are the man for this time."

Tsunami Tuesday--05 February '08

Here are the Democratic races on "Tsunami Tuesday," along with the type of race and pledged delegates. (I am not counting the number of "super delegates" since it is still unclear how they will be awarded, not to mention how they will vote. I sincerely hope that they are abolished after this election cycle.) Some of these races are "closed" meaning that only registered Democrats (not Republicans or Independents) can vote. But, unlike with the Republicans, all Democratic primaries and caucuses are awarded delegates based on proportion of the vote won. None of these races are "winner take all." So, for instance, Hillary Clinton could win some delegates from Obama's home state of Illinois and Obama could win delegates from Clinton's home state of New York--even though the hometown favorites will probably come in first in their respective home states. Also, conceivably, John Edwards, though he has yet to win a primary or caucus, could still keep winning delegates up to the Democratic National Convention and be in a position to play King or Queen maker or influence platform positions. (There are rumors that the Obama campaign is considering Edwards for the role of Atty. General if Obama should win the White House. Edwards, by all accounts a brilliant trial lawyer, could use that office to defend Labor, enforce civil rights and voting rights, prosecute polluters and safety violators, etc. If offered, I think he would take that job, especially if some of his positions on healthcare, etc. were quietly adopted by Obama.)

Alabama: Primary 52

Alaska: Caucuses 13

American Samoa: Primary 3 (A territory rather than a state, it has no representation in Congress, but American Samoans are citizens who vote in presidential elections.0

Arizona: Primary 56 (Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-AZ) has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, but the state is heavily Republican and, in the general election, is likely to vote Republican, especially if the GOP nominee is favorite son Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)).

Arkansas : Primary 35

California: Primary 370 (This is the big prize and has often been decisive in both the primaries and the general election because it is the most populous state in the union. Latinos are 35% of the population and Asians are 12.5%, while only 6% are African-American. Another wild card is that absentee balloting accounts for about 40% of California's voting--and those primary votes are already cast.)

Colorado: Caucus 55 (The Democratic National Convention will be held in Denver. This is one of those Western states that has been mostly Republican in the past, but is trending Democratic.)

Connecticut: Primary 48 (Now that favorite son, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) dropped out following the Iowa caucuses, how will CT vote? I would think that to win a Dodd endorsement, either Obama or Clinton would have to return to the Senate briefly to help him defeat the GOP attempts at permanent warrantless wiretapping with immunity for telecom companies.)

Delaware: Primary 15 (Ditto above, now that Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) has dropped out? Biden is a DLC Democrat and I would think he helps Hillary Clinton campaign here.)

Democrats Abroad: Primary 7

Georgia: Primary 87

Idaho: Caucus 18

Illinois: Primary 153 (Obama has homecourt advantage, but the breaking news of the arrest of Tony Rezko, even though Obama has returned campaign contributions and has not been linked at all with Rezko's corruption charges, could hurt. The Chicago Tribune is writing editorials critical of Obama's ties, even though they are nowhere as close as many other Illinois politicians--and even Hillary Clinton had Rezko raise money for her.)

Kansas: Caucus 32

Massachussetts: Primary 93 (Gov. Deval Patrick (D-MA) and both of Mass.' senators, Kerry (D-MA), and Kennedy (D-MA), are endorsing Obama.)

Minnesota: Caucus: 72

Missouri: Primary 72 (Obama has been endorsed by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and fmr. Sen. Carnahan (D-MO)

New Jersey: Primary 107

New Mexico: Caucuses 26 (Heavily Latino. I'd love to see Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) endorse Obama, but he has so far stayed neutral.)

New York: Primary 232 (Hillary Clinton's home turf. She has the endorsement of Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee and of the New York Times, and many influential politicians and Afrian-American ministers here. But, Obama also has supporters, including fundraisers, here and has won the endorsement of the liberal New York Daily News. Still, I'd be very surprised if Clinton doesn't win NY.)

North Dakota: Caucuses 13

Oklahoma: Primary 38

Tennessee: Primary 68

Utah: Primary 23

If this round of voting (amounting to a national primary) does not end in a clear nominee, which seems increasingly likely, the next round of voting comes on 09 February and then throughout the month. Another wave comes in March and then leftovers. Kentucky's primary is not until 20 May '08. That would ordinarily mean that our 47 delegates are irrelevant to the selection of the nominee--but that may not be the case this year. We'll see.

Democrats Abroad

Are you a U.S. citizen living overseas? Do you want to vote in the 2008 elections, but have difficulty affording or getting the absentee ballots? Or, worse yet, does your state use a caucus rather than a primary to choose party nomination, thereby making it impossible for you to participate? Well, help is at hand. You can register to vote online at VoteFromAbroad.org

Further, if you are a registered Democrat (there is also a similar online group for Republicans, but I'll let GOP folks find it on their own--this is a progressive Democratic blog!), you should know about Democrats Abroad, the overseas branch of the Democratic Party. It will help you participate in more ways than just voting. But get to it quickly, because Democrats Abroad vote on 05 February '08, "Tsunami Tuesday," so your chance to register for that is probably gone. But you can vote if already registered. And, if you register quickly, even if you aren't yet registered, you can vote in the November general election. So, if this applies to you, get to it.

If it applies to loved ones--and I know many Kentuckians have relatives overseas in the military or serving as missionaries, or working for international corporations, serving in the Peace Corps or other peace-related national service, or are part of an embassy--or even pursuing advanced academic degrees abroad. Contact them and let them know how they can still exercise their franchise as U.S. citizens and help shape the future of this nation--and, because (for better and worse) we are so influential, the world.

Ted Kennedy to Endorse Obama!

Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy, will endorse Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for U.S. president tomorrow. That is his biggest endorsement, yet, and comes on the heels of yesterday's huge SC blowout and this a.m.'s endorsement by Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, daughter of the late Pres. John F. Kennedy, and Ted's niece. It also comes on top of huge online fundraising last night--the Obama campaign raised more than $500,000 (most of it in small contributions) in one hour after his victory speech. (Now if he can translate that into a ground game in the next 9 days!) Ms. Schlossberg's endorsement was amazing, calling Obama the first presidential candidate in her lifetime who had the opportunity to inspire her the way many say her father inspired them. (I was only 3 when JFK was murdered and only 5 when Bobby was killed. My greatest inspiration was Jimmy Carter--no great speaker--for his human rights foreign policy. But it wasn't the same. BTW, I don't think those who expect either Carter or Al Gore to endorse anyone are right. Carter needs the cooperation of the White House for some of the work of the Carter Center and Gore wants a major effort on climate change--so neither can afford to alienate a potential president by endorsing a losing candidate.)

But this is huge. With both Kennedy and Kerry endorsing Obama, he will probably win Mass. on 05 Feb. Further, I think he has a better shot at NJ than Hillary thinks. I also think he has a major shot at Georgia, Colorado, North Carolina and will take Illinois, of course. I do not know how to read the big prize of California--but Kennedy's endorsement may swing others. He is hugely popular among the liberal end of the Democratic Party. (I would love for California's Sen. Barbara Boxer to endorse Obama. She's been neutral, but with her cohort, Feinstein, endorsing Clinton, Boxer may way in--and she is more liberal than either Feinstein or Clinton. I would also love more Latino endorsements, of course!)

Obama's SC Victory Speech

TEXT:

Over two weeks ago, we saw the people of Iowa proclaim that our time for change has come. But there were those who doubted this country’s desire for something new – who said Iowa was a fluke not to be repeated again.

Well, tonight, the cynics who believed that what began in the snows of Iowa was just an illusion were told a different story by the good people of South Carolina.

After four great contests in every corner of this country, we have the most votes, the most delegates, and the most diverse coalition of Americans we’ve seen in a long, long time.

They are young and old; rich and poor. They are black and white; Latino and Asian. They are Democrats from Des Moines and Independents from Concord; Republicans from rural Nevada and young people across this country who’ve never had a reason to participate until now. And in nine days, nearly half the nation will have the chance to join us in saying that we are tired of business-as-usual in Washington, we are hungry for change, and we are ready to believe again.

But if there’s anything we’ve been reminded of since Iowa, it’s that the kind of change we seek will not come easy. Partly because we have fine candidates in the field – fierce competitors, worthy of respect and our admiration. And as contentious as this campaign may get, we have to remember that this is a contest for the Democratic nomination, and that all of us share an abiding desire to end the disastrous policies of the current administration.

But there are real differences between the candidates. We are looking for more than just a change of party in the White House. We’re looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington – a status quo that extends beyond any particular party. And right now, that status quo is fighting back with everything it’s got; with the same old tactics that divide and distract us from solving the problems people face, whether those problems are health care they can’t afford or a mortgage they cannot pay.

So this will not be easy. Make no mistake about what we’re up against.

We are up against the belief that it’s ok for lobbyists to dominate our government – that they are just part of the system in Washington. But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem, and this election is our chance to say that we’re not going to let them stand in our way anymore.

We are up against the conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as President comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor, and judgment, and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose – a higher purpose.

We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make college affordable or energy cleaner; it’s the kind of partisanship where you’re not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea – even if it’s one you never agreed with. That kind of politics is bad for our party, it’s bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all.

We are up against the idea that it’s acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election. We know that this is exactly what’s wrong with our politics; this is why people don’t believe what their leaders say anymore; this is why they tune out. And this election is our chance to give the American people a reason to believe again.

And what we’ve seen in these last weeks is that we’re also up against forces that are not the fault of any one campaign, but feed the habits that prevent us from being who we want to be as a nation. It’s the politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon. A politics that tells us that we have to think, act, and even vote within the confines of the categories that supposedly define us. The assumption that young people are apathetic. The assumption that Republicans won’t cross over. The assumption that the wealthy care nothing for the poor, and that the poor don’t vote. The assumption that African-Americans can’t support the white candidate; whites can’t support the African-American candidate; blacks and Latinos can’t come together.

But we are here tonight to say that this is not the America we believe in. I did not travel around this state over the last year and see a white South Carolina or a black South Carolina. I saw South Carolina. I saw crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children. I saw shuttered mills and homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from all walks of life, and men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. I saw what America is, and I believe in what this country can be.

That is the country I see. That is the country you see. But now it is up to us to help the entire nation embrace this vision. Because in the end, we are not just up against the ingrained and destructive habits of Washington, we are also struggling against our own doubts, our own fears, and our own cynicism. The change we seek has always required great struggle and sacrifice. And so this is a battle in our own hearts and minds about what kind of country we want and how hard we’re willing to work for it.

So let me remind you tonight that change will not be easy. That change will take time. There will be setbacks, and false starts, and sometimes we will make mistakes. But as hard as it may seem, we cannot lose hope. Because there are people all across this country who are counting us; who can’t afford another four years without health care or good schools or decent wages because our leaders couldn’t come together and get it done.

Theirs are the stories and voices we carry on from South Carolina.
The mother who can’t get Medicaid to cover all the needs of her sick child – she needs us to pass a health care plan that cuts costs and makes health care available and affordable for every single American.

The teacher who works another shift at Dunkin Donuts after school just to make ends meet – she needs us to reform our education system so that she gets better pay, and more support, and her students get the resources they need to achieve their dreams.

The Maytag worker who is now competing with his own teenager for a $7-an-hour job at Wal-Mart because the factory he gave his life to shut its doors – he needs us to stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship our jobs overseas and start putting them in the pockets of working Americans who deserve it. And struggling homeowners. And seniors who should retire with dignity and respect.

The woman who told me that she hasn’t been able to breathe since the day her nephew left for Iraq, or the soldier who doesn’t know his child because he’s on his third or fourth tour of duty – they need us to come together and put an end to a war that should’ve never been authorized and never been waged.

The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It’s not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white.
It’s about the past versus the future. [Personal note: Best line of the whole speech. MLW-W]

It’s about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today, or whether we reach for a politics of common sense, and innovation – a shared sacrifice and shared prosperity.

There are those who will continue to tell us we cannot do this. That we cannot have what we long for. That we are peddling false hopes.

But here’s what I know. I know that when people say we can’t overcome all the big money and influence in Washington, I think of the elderly woman who sent me a contribution the other day – an envelope that had a money order for $3.01 along with a verse of scripture tucked inside. So don’t tell us change isn’t possible.

When I hear the cynical talk that blacks and whites and Latinos can’t join together and work together, I’m reminded of the Latino brothers and sisters I organized with, and stood with, and fought with side by side for jobs and justice on the streets of Chicago. So don’t tell us change can’t happen.

When I hear that we’ll never overcome the racial divide in our politics, I think about that Republican woman who used to work for Strom Thurmond, who’s now devoted to educating inner-city children and who went out onto the streets of South Carolina and knocked on doors for this campaign. Don’t tell me we can’t change.

Yes we can change.
Yes we can heal this nation.
Yes we can seize our future.

And as we leave this state with a new wind at our backs, and take this journey across the country we love with the message we’ve carried from the plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire; from the Nevada desert to the South Carolina coast; the same message we had when we were up and when we were down – that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope; and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people in three simple words:

Yes. We. Can.

Obama Wins BIG in South Carolina

Wow! What a win. As soon as video of the incredible victory speech is available, I will post it. It was as inspiring as the one after Iowa, but with more steel--so, maybe the media won't be annointing him already and setting up for failure as with the time between Iowa and New Hampshire.

I had been angry this week at the way that the Clintons and the media had made this almost a no win game for Obama. If he lost, they would celebrate, but if he won they would dismiss it as "just because of the black vote." 1. No one dismissed Clinton's NH victory as "just because of the white women" even though exit polls showed they were key to her NH victory. They said, rightly, that she was the "Comeback Chic," as the Kentucky Women blog put it. 2. Clinton was leading African Americans in SC for months. Obama EARNED their votes. African Americans don't automatically "vote black." There was no significant African American support in '04 for the candidacies of Ambassador Carol Mosely-Braun (D-IL) or Rev. Al Sharpton. 3. This lowballing of expectations and injection of race is typical of the Clintons. Bill Clinton today, when asked a question on a completely different subject replied, "you know, Jesse Jackson won in SC in '84 and '88." Hello! That was dismissing both as "just because they're black!" Sheesh.

But tonight will hopefully shut that up. Yes, Obama won big among African Americans--over 80%, but he also won 24% of whites in SC--who split almost in 3rds among the 3 candidates. He won significant numbers of white women, too. He beat Hillary Rodham Clinton by more than 2-1: 55% to 29% (at last count), which is a margin of victory of 29%!! That is "a thumpin" as the current White House Resident might put it.

Now, on to Tsunami Tuesday on Feb. 5th. And probably beyond that. My primary vote may actually count this year in May. It won't be easy, as Obama said. But notice that the Clintons keep trying to cheat. They agree to certain rules and then try to change them when they don't seem to work for them. We saw this in Nevada when the Culinary Workers endorsed Obama--the Clintons sued to stop caucuses in casinos--even though they agreed to that months earlier. NOW, the Clintons are trying to get the Democratic primaries in Florida and Michigan to count--even though the Party had stripped those states of their delegates because of moving up the primaries too early. I disagreed with that decision by the Democratic Party. I thought, like the GOP, that they should simply strip 50% of the delegates in punishment. But Clinton was the only one with her name still on the ballot because these races weren't supposed to count for delegates--and now she wants them too. I hope the DNC and Howard Dean stop her cold on this.
When the GOP does this, Dems rightly call it "dirty tricks" and should when the Clintons do so as well.

It's clear: Obama is giving us a message of hope and unity, and the Clintons are working at divide and conquer. I hope the states on 05 Feb (or many of them) give us the same answer as we saw tonight from the good voters of South Carolina.

There is good news for the Party and nation if we stay united: The turnout at each Democratic primary and caucus has been huge, whereas the GOP turnout has been smaller each time. Tonight, Obama won more votes on his own than John McCain and Mike Huckabee did together last week in South Carolina!

The country is hungry for change--big change, not just tiny adjustments--and it sure looks like Obama is the one to bring it to us.

A word about John Edwards. I think many of his ideas have been driving the campaign on the Democratic side. Obama's stump speeches have taken on some of Edwards' attention to issues of class and poverty and some of his fire and grit--but without his angry tone. Edwards has enough money and has won enough delegates to keep fighting and play king or queenmaker at the Convention. But he can't win the presidency: he hasn't won a single state--not even his home state of SC tonight. And I still worry that on Tsunami Tuesday he will divide the "more progressive than Clinton" vote with Obama and cause her to win the nomination. That didn't happen tonight in SC--and not in Nevada (although if all of Edwards' 4% went to Obama, it would have made Clinton's victory VERY narrow) nor Iowa. But it was a factor in New Hampshire where Obama lost by about 5%, but with Edwards 17% would have beaten Clinton in a huge way.

Please John Edwards: If you really think Sen. Clinton is part of the "status quo," as you have charged, then drop out and work for Obama. For the sake of all you believe in, sir.

Oh, and for WONDERFUL news, check out the Obama endorsement by JFK's daughter, Caroline Kennedy who says he will be a "president like my father" in the sense of inspiring that kind of hope and work for change that JFK inspired among a generation of people! Wow!

The Clintons are Losing Black America

After watching Obama's polling among Southern whites go downhill, I have been worried that the Clintons have not only been trying to push a black/Latino divide, but have been trying to kill Obama's white support by painting him as "just a black candidate" and therefore leaving whites, especially Southern whites, who were previously attracted to him wondering what stake they have in his candidacy. (Remember, most people do NOT decide elections on the issues.) Jack and Jill Politics, a political blog from an African-American viewpoint that I have begun reading in recent weeks, gives an outline of how the Clintons are beginning to lose Black America. They might defeat Obama in the primaries this way (whites and Latinos are more numerous), but it is a sure fire recipe to lose the general election--and maybe damage the party for years to come. I urge reading this thoughtful essay.

http://jackandjillpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/01/clintons-black-folk-and-america.html

Michelle Obama v. Bill Clinton?

CNN: Michell Obama a greater assett than "the other leading candidate's spouse." Also, notes that it is the two Yale Law School grads (the Clintons) vs. two Harvard Law School grads. (Hmm, I wonder if that's one reason my friend, Texas in Africa, no Hillary fan, but a Yalie who has returned to the Lone Star State, is less than enthusiastic about Obama?)

Obama Videos

Some new Obama videos. 1st up, is his sermon last Sunday at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Martin Luther King, Jr. was once the pastor. The man introducing him (who endorsed no one and had both Bill Clinton and Mike Huckabee at the MLK Day ceremonies the next day) is the current pastor, Rev. Dr. Raphael G. Warnock, whom I have met. We are both strong members of the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America and I had the privilege 2 summers ago of giving an award to the legendary civil rights leader, Rev. C. T. Vivian, from that very pulpit. It is humbling for a Southern good ol'boy whose parents were bit players in the Movement, I'll tell you.




The next video is from a rally in Sumter, SC:



The final video today is an interview with Maya Soetoro-Ng, Barack's half-sister, who is Asian-American. I found it fascinating and one more reason to consider him the first real 21st C. U.S. presidential candidate.

Kentucky Political Updates

Lot's of political news around the Commonwealth, today. Let's get to it:

1. It looks like several Republicans are planning to challenge my wonderful Congressional Representative, John Yarmuth (D-KY) of KY's 3rd District, for reelection. Bush/McConnell hatchet woman, Anne Northup, whom Yarmuth defeated in '06 and who then proceeded to lose a primary challenge to scandal-ridden Gov. Ernie Fletcher (R-KY) last year (before Fletcher himself went down in the Gen. Elect last November), is considering a rematch with Yarmuth. Well, Northup's a strong campaigner and kept her Congressional seat for 10 years in a district far more liberal than she is by playing pork politics extremely well. And, since every time a Congressional district changes parties, the next 2 year election is when it is MOST vulnerable to switching back, a Northup challenge would be something to take very seriously--especially since Yarmuth beat her by less than 6,000 votes. But Yarmuth has been given one of the highest ratings of any frosh Representative. And he was elected on the promise to stand up to the Bush admin and has done so with remarkable consistency. Plus, since he, like Northup, is personally wealthy, he has kept a campaign promise to donate his entire Congressional salary to charity. So, I am confident that Yarmuth could withstand an assault by Northup. But, now, there are other GOP contenders: Bob Devore, Jr. of Fern Creek, an unknown GOP candidate has filed to run. Real estate developer Chris Thieneman, who successfully campaigned to kill a tax referendum that would have allowed our public libraries to improve and expand (Thieneman claimed we could do this without a tax, simply by issuing a bond--but the economy won't grow to support that!) announced that he will file even if Queen Anne does, too. And, Todd Lally, a pilot for UPS, is considering a run. Any more? The way I see it, a crowded primary for the GOP does nothing but help Yarmuth! Heck, let's have a brawl between Northup and Thieneman as we saw between Northup and Fletcher last year--with the same result, both lose!
2. Why will Yarmuth win? Because he's smart and knows what the Commonwealth and the nation needs. In the face of the looming recession, Yarmuth is not content with playing around with tax rebates or lowering interest rates. No, he's going to the heart of the matter and helping small businesses--which create 50% of all new jobs in the U.S. Yarmuth introduced legislation yesterday, co-sponsored by Rep. Melissa Bean (D-IL) and Paul Hodes (D-NH), to allow small businesses losing money this year to spread their losses over five years. The legislation would also allow small business owners to write off up to $250,000 of their business expenses, instead of the currently allowed $125,000. Now, by itself, this legislation will hardly prevent the economic recession that may have already begun--but it has to help. And, it's targeted correctly--not at global corporations which can absorb the losses, but at the small businesses that help all of middle America. Yarmuth is also proposing separate legislation that will add $300 to the earned income child deduction for individual taxation, bringing that to $1,300--which will help struggling families. This the kind of leadership we NEVER got from Northup and which we certainly won't see from Mr. "I Hate Libraries." So, keep it up, John. You are the best Rep. this district has had since Romano Mazzoli (D-KY) retired. We've waited a long time for this kind of voice in Washington and now that we have it, we'll sure fight to keep it!
3. Advocates for the disabled rallied in Frankfort to keep Gov. Beshear from cutting services in the face of our huge budget problems. Beshear said he would "try" not to cut services. But he refuses to consider raising our cigarette tax (3rd lowest in the nation) and is putting all his hopes for new revenue on casino gambling--even though there is little guarantee that an amendment to the state constitution will pass allowing such gaming--and there are plenty of reasons to vote against it. 29% of Kentuckians smoke, we have one of the highest teen smoking rates and 1 out of 4 pregnant women in this state smoke. Raise the cigarette tax by $.30--the Commonwealth needs the revenue and we need incentives that prevent teens from starting to smoke and encourage others to quit! The Fletcher admin has left the state broke just as the economy is taking a dive. Risking all our progress in education, etc. through slash-and-burn budgets, or risking all new revenue on casino gambling (with its attendent social problems!) is foolish. Wise up, Governor.
4. NAACP gives "Fs" to Kentuckiana GOP lawmakers
   The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has released its latest "Civil Rights Federal Legislative Report Card," and it gives failing grades to all the Kentuckiana Republicans in Congress.The NAACP's ratings, based on 15 votes in the Senate and 25 votes in the House last year, are based on whether lawmakers voted with or against the positions of the civil rights group on legislation it considered of special interest to African Americans and supporters of civil rights.Anything below 59 percent was rated an "F." The Democrats landed either an "A" (90-100 percent) or "B" (80-89 percent).Here are the ratings:Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.: 27 percent. (More reason to Ditch Mitch in '08. Give now to the campaign of Andrew Horne!)Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky.: 13 percent. (Good grief!) Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind.: 47 percent. Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind.: 93 percent. Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-1st District: 52 percent. Rep. Ron Lewis, R-2nd District: 28 percent. (Do we have a good challenger to Lewis this year?0 Rep. John Yarmuth, D-3rd District: 96 percent. (Wow!) Rep. Geoff Davis, R-4th District: 36 percent .Rep. Hal Rogers, R-5th District: 40 percent.Rep. Ben Chandler, D-6th District: 92 percent. Rep. Baron Hill, D-9th District: 88 percent

Democrats: I'm Starting to Worry

Many Democrats seem to think that victory in this year's presidential campaign, plus many Congressional and Senate campaigns is a given. The only question is how big the win will be.

Count me skeptical. YES, we have many structural factors in our favor:

• Largely because of the Bush administration's behavior these past 7 years, fewer voters are registered Republican while the ranks of the Democratic Party and of Independents are growing.
• Voter turnout is higher in all of the primaries so far, and higher in the Democratic than GOP primaries.
• The economy is getting worse and usually the party in power is blamed for economic problems on their watch (often with good reason). Historically, Democrats have bailed the country out of far more recessions and depressions than have Republicans.
• The war/occupation is no longer the lead story every night on the news, but it is still a large concern. The people want it ended and every Democratic candidate is pledging to end it (differing only on how quickly and with what strategy, now) and the only GOP candidate pledging to end it is the unelectable Ron Paul.
• The majority of people poll in favor of Democratic positions on most issues, rather than GOP ones--with gun control a major exception, but none of the Democratic candidates left are pledging sweeping gun control measures.
• The environment, education, healthcare and saving Social Security, all issues where Democrats do better, are high concern items for the public and getting higher.
• The GOP mantra that "government is not the answer, government is the problem" is being rejected en masse for the first time since 1980. After watching incredible government ineptitude for 7 years, people are getting the idea that one should elect people to government posts who believe in those posts and who are able to make them function. Further, people poll as now believing that government should be a major actor in changing lives for the better--a belief that clearly favors Democrats.

So, we should be able to count on many victories this Fall--not only with the White House, but also in many Congressional and Senate races.

BUT--there are reasons NOT to take anything for granted:

• The Lee Atwater/Karl Rove playbook is still alive and well. The GOP will play many dirty tricks to confuse voters, demonize Democrats and depress voter turnout.
• Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) may be the GOP nominee. Although he is very pro-war, he is anti-torture and respected as both a military hero and as a straight talker. He polls well with moderate Republicans, independents, and conservative Democrats. That means he is the most electable of the GOP candidates. We never thought he would get this far because he is hated by the GOP rightwing which is a strong part of their base. But Republicans care about electability, too. The neo-cons will like him on the war and the Religious Right, whatever their other problems with him, know that he has always been strongly against abortion. They may put up with the parts of his profile they don't like in the hopes to keep the White House and not lose much in Congress. Unlike any of the other GOP candidates, McCain will not be easy to beat in a general election.
• If the Democratic nominee is Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), it will be very difficult to win any Southern states or many Midwestern states. Her negatives are the highest of any Democratic candidate, even though much "Hillary hatred" is irrational and unwarranted. While she leaves the progressive wing of the Democratic party cold, especially its peace wing of which I am a part, she infuriates the GOP base. Thus, if she is the nominee, she could do more to turn out a GOP base that might otherwise stay home than she would in turning out Democratic voters--not to mention independents. If she wins, it will likely be close.
• Pres. Bill Clinton, although very popular with many Democrats, is not popular with independents, any Republican, or new voters, who don't remember him. He must shut up! His remarks are so divisive that even if they work in securing the nomination for his wife, they could well cost us the election. Sen. Clinton's reply that all 3 candidates have "very passionate spouses who stick up for them" is disingenuous. Yes, Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama are strong personalities and strong campaigners. But (a) they don't get the press coverage Bill Clinton does, (b) they haven't said nasty things about Hillary Clinton, and (c) none of them is a former U.S. president who should be supporting the entire party, not just his wife! (George H. W. Bush supported W's candidacy, but did not campaign for him, nor say anything about any of his rivals in the GOP in 2000.) No former president (as opposed to nominee) has ever endorsed a candidate in the primary until Bill Clinton. Someone shut him up, before he costs us our biggest chance for both the White House and a working progressive majority in years!
• If the race is close, the GOP has proven very adept at stealing the election.
• Racial prejudice may still play a large part in presidential politics. The "Bradley effect," whites telling pollsters they will vote for an African-American when they won't, is hard to measure, but it seems to have been a real factor in several gubanatorial elections. So, if Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is the nominee, he will have to bring in enough new voters (young people), independents, and disgusted Republicans to offset any "Bradley effect."
• The fighting between Sens. Clinton and Obama (and, from where I sit, neither is guiltless) could split the party. It has happened before. In 1980, the primary feud between Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Pres. Jimmy Carter was so intense that it didn't heal even after the Democratic National Convention. It was one of the factors in the election victory of Ronald Reagan. (Reagan w0n in '80 by a very slim margin, although he won reelection in '84 by a landslide. A united and energized Democratic Party could have beaten him in '80.)
• The Party CANNOT split along lines of race and gender. C'mon, people! Women are nearly 60% of the Democratic Party--which is why that witch, Ann Coulter, said she wanted to take away the vote from women: to "spare the country any more Democratic presidents!" None of our candidates can win without large female support. African-Americans are only 13% of the population, but they vote 90% Democratic. None of our candidates can win without significant African-American support. Latinos are the largest growing ethnic group in the country--by 2040, we will have no majority ethnic group (whites will be a plurality) and Latinos may pass whites as the largest of the no-majority groups before 2050. Latinos vote Democratic over 60% of the time.

I'm NOT calling for any letting up on vigorous campaigning (although I hope Edwards drops out, soon). I hope it continues to be a hard fought race--so my primary vote may actually count in May. But, let us all pledge to support the nominee and let us campaign in ways that do not make such unity difficult later. We have to be working NOW to Get Out the Vote and to elect progressives in both Houses of Congress. We don't want 2008 to be yet another year when Democrats shoot themselves in the foot and aid in our own defeat! (I swear, if we screw this up, I may move to Canada.) The stakes are too high, folks--not just for the Party or the Nation, but the world.

Democratic Delegate Count

Okay, if we ONLY count pledged Democratic delegates, Obama is slightly ahead. But if we count superdelegates (which ought to be abolished and are a way to keep establishment candidates in front of insurgent grassroots campaigns), who will not be firmly committed until at least April (later if there is no clear nominee, yet), then Clinton has a dramatic lead.

Pledged delegates only:

• Obama 38
• Clinton 36
• Edwards 18

With superdelegates added:

• Clinton 210
• Obama 123
• Edwards 52

I hope whomever the Democratic nominee is, they pledge to end the tyranny of superdelegates as part of overall campaign reform. No wonder other nations wonder that we have anything close to democracy, here!

Post-Nevada Reflections

First off, congratulations to all the Hillary Clinton supporters out there. I will support the Democratic nominee even if she should be Sen. Clinton. I don't think Clinton should be the nominee, but even she is lightyears ahead of any of the GOP presidential candidates.

Second, please John Edwards, drop out, now. True, even with your 4% of the vote, Obama would still have narrowly lost Nevada to Clinton. But it is clear, now, that you cannot win, cannot keep racking up delegates to play king or queen maker at the convention, and can only keep splitting the "left of Clinton" vote. Drop out and work for Obama in SC. Since, as I reported yesterday, he seems to be having trouble with white Democratic males in some polls, work to shore up his chances with them--unless you want Clinton, whom you rightly have called part of the status quo (at least, of the Democratic status quo, which is not as bad the GOP version, but still not very progressive), to win!

Third, while it is too late for this election cycle, clearly caucuses have too many problems to trust. Secret ballot is essential for democracy. I realize that Nevada, like many states, went to the caucus system in order to move their "primary" forward in time, but there has to be another solution. Even in Iowa too many voters who work evenings are disenfranchised. In Nevada this was compounded by holding them on Saturday, considered the Sabbath by Jews, during worship time! In a land dedicated to religious liberty, no one should have to choose between participation in the democratic process and fulfilling one's religious obligations. (Yes, I would also oppose holding such a process on Friday evening which begins the Sabbath for Orthodox Jews and is also a time of worship for Muslims. We are becoming ever more pluralistic in this nation and must make adjustments.)

Finally, while I stand by my congratulations to the Clintons and their supporters, after NH and now Nevada, I have to ask, "Is Bill Clinton going to throw a temper tantrum the night before every primary?" When Hillary said she "found her voice" in NH, many of us hoped that meant she was going shut Bill up! I mean it's in very bad taste, to say the least, to agree to certain caucus or primary rules, then sue to have them changed when a key union endorses a rival, then charge voter suppression and lowball expectations ("Obama has a 5 point advantage!"--something no poll supported), and then engage in voter intimidation by visiting caucus sites on the day of voting! And this is to give the Clinton campaign the benefit of the doubt and say that they weren't behind the anti-Obama robo-calls! Such behavior might win the nomination for Sen. Clinton--and may do such harm to the party in the process that we lose the general election in November. It will certainly remind many independents and moderate Republicans of everything they DON'T want to return to about the Clinton years! (I doubt seriously that Bill Clinton will follow up on his plans to investigate supposed voter suppression in Nevada now that Hillary won!! Hypocrite.) John McCain may well become the GOP nominee--and he is the one GOP candidate that many polls show beating Hillary. Do we want to get only 49% of the country--or become so close that the GOP dirty tricks squad can steal another election! If we want to win decisively in November then the nominee must be a uniting rather than dividing figure. I think that's ALREADY a longshot for Sen. Clinton--but it will be impossible if Bill Clinton doesn't shut up his fat mouth, already!!

I am worried about the apparent split between Latino/a and African-American voters. The Clintons' tactics are exacerbating such a split.

Sen. Obama, I hope you are rested and refreshed. It will be a long week in SC. And if Bill Clinton is going door to door throughout African-American neighborhoods, as he promised, you must, too. Bring every African-American supporter--and hopefully, John Edwards and others will help you with poor whites. You need some help with Southern white women, too. Roll out everything you've got--this is the big one. Without a clear win in SC, you won't survive Tsunami Tuesday, sir.

Meanwhile, I hope you get more Latino/a endorsements in the West.

Young people: Your numbers were incredibly impressive in Iowa and good in NH, but not in Nevada. Let's go! If you want real change, big change, and your voices to count, you MUST TURN OUT IN DROVES!

Recent Obama Developments

Since it is too early to know what is happening in the Democratic caucuses in Nevada (Romney won as expected for the GOP; bad weather and low voter turnout for the GOP primary in SC), I'm giving some other updates and comments on the Obama campaign.

• The Reagan remarks were only controversial because Clinton and, I hate to say it, Edwards made them so. They may have been ill-timed--better saved for a general election outreach. But, contrary to talking points by the Clinton campaign (including both Hillary and Bill), Obama did NOT say that the GOP had "good" or "better" ideas the past 15-20 ideas. He said they had been the "party of ideas in the sense of challenging conventional wisdom." He also specifically criticized many of those ideas and called them all "played out." Nor, Edwards to the contrary, did he call Reagan a positive change agent. All he said, and this is undeniably true, was that Reagan's election changed the direction of the nation for a generation: for the worse. Obama was only hoping to say that some elections can be more than incremental changes--they can usher in moments of sweeping change. But, again, the comparison might have been saved for the general election, because invoking Reagan in a Democratic primary season INVITES the kind of nasty distortions and reactions that he got.
• The Latino vote in the West will be a major factor--and is probably a major factor today in Nevada where 25% of the electorate is Latino/a. Clinton has had major Latino/a endorsements, especially in California which is a closed primary with a huge slate of delegates. But now, a number of California Latino/a leaders who had been backing Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM), have, since Richardson's withdrawal post-NH, endorsed Obama.
• The most important of these recent Latino/a endorsements for Obama comes from Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA). Rep. Sanchez represents the 39th District of CA which includes parts of L.A., Long Beach, and other parts of L.A. County. She is the first Latina to serve on the House Judiciary Committee and serves on the Education, Labor, and Foreign Affairs committees. She is on her 3rd term in Congress, is hugely popular, and is co-founder of the Labor and Working Families Caucus in the House. Rep. Sanchez released the following statement today:

"After much consideration, I am excited to endorse Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for President. In a talented field, Barack Obama stands out as the best candidate to deliver the change that America desperately needs.”

"Since I began serving in Congress five years ago, I have seen the difficulty in bringing fresh ideas to Washington, DC, and to our country. Sadly, great talent and ideas are too often dismissed because those who possessed them were seen as too idealistic, too young, or too unwilling to submit to the same old Washington way of doing things. Senator Obama is the candidate who can change that culture by mobilizing a new generation to get involved in the civic life of our country. He is reinvigorating America by showing us that we all have a stake -- and a say -- in our democracy and our country's future.”

"America faces economic and foreign policy challenges so great that no single person or group of political insiders can solve them. We need to change that. Barack Obama has already shown he can deliver by bringing people together."

"Throughout my career, both before, and in, Congress, I have fought for working families like my own. Families who are working hard, yet still struggling to make ends meet, need a president who knows their struggle. I believe that with Barack Obama, they will have a president that doesn't just understand the difficulties they face, but will stand up and fight for them.”

"In the coming days and weeks, I will be talking with my fellow Californians about why I think it's important we vote for Barack Obama on February 5. Beyond that, I look forward to a future of working with President Obama to deliver the change America needs."

• Alas, recent polls suggest that Obama may be facing significant resistance among white Democrats in the South. I'm hoping these polls are misleading. They do not ask where Edwards' supporters will go if/when he drops out. My own support for Edwards, like many others, was not race based and Obama was my clear next choice after NH showed that Edwards could not win. But if racism still persists among white Southern Dems in a greater percentage than among the national population (sigh--it could easily be true), then the general election could be rocky and, if Obama is the nominee, he will need greater support in other regions. Still, I think the GOP vote will be low in the gen election because of dissatisfaction with their party--so, that could help the Democratic nominee win Southern states that might go Republican if they had stronger candidates--even if that nominee is seeking to be the first woman or first African-American president.
• In related news, at an award ceremony in Colorado, a man made a racist Obama joke that did NOT result in audience laughter. I hope it results in Coloradoans turning out for Obama on 05 Feb!
• From the irony department: After trying for 2 weeks to suppress the vote in Nevada, Bill Clinton is charging the Obama campaign with voter suppression today! You know, since the Clintons have been the victims of such incredible smear campaigns over the years, you'd think they would be the last to use such tactics. But this UGLY campaign has shown that they will do ANYTHING to get elected. Don't get me wrong: I think there are inherent inequalities in the caucus system. It lets only a small selection of people decide things that should be decided by secret ballot. It hurts people who have to work or, in this case, people whose religious obligations conflict. (Whose idea was it to have the caucuses on Sat. am, which is the Sabbath for Jews and Seventh Day Adventists--and Nevada has a fast growing Jewish population!) But, having agreed to the rules and all their problems months ago, it is clear that the Clintons ONLY raised objections (and lawsuits) after the Culinary Workers endorsed Obama. Had the endorsement gone for Hillary Clinton, as the Clintons expected, they would have said nothing--because they said nothing months ago when the rules were decided.
• In other news, Michigan's Democratic "primary" (which didn't count because Michigan was stripped of delegates for breaking party rules in scheduling) had exit polls which, if they hold up nationally, show problems for Clinton and promise for Obama.
• Nothing to do now, but sit back and wait for the caucus results in a few hours. Enjoy your weekend and, while you are thinking about politics, go to Andrew Horne's website and contribute some money for his valiant effort in helping us Ditch Mitch McConnell!

McConnell's Exit Strategy

Andrew Horne to Daily Kos , "I am Mitch McConnell's Exit Strategy!" He will be, too, if we all help him. Go to Horne's website and contribute and volunteer. We can Ditch Mitch in '08 if we get behind Horne, folks. Also, join the Google group, "Netroots for Horne," and help spread the word about his candidacy.

Fight Savage's Anti-Muslim Hate Speech

Brought to you by the good folks at Fox Attacks. See the film and then go to No Savage and urge his sponsors to pull his support. Free speech is great. I support it. But I can also boycott hate speech. We don't have to fund this demagoguery and filth. Savage is exactly like the demagogues in pre-WWII Nazi Germany who created waves of xenophobic hatred against Jews--paving the way for the Holocaust. Savage is trying to create the same atmosphere for a "final solution" against Muslims--and he's only the most visible demagogue. So, we stand up for freedom and for the rights of Muslims and for decency, here and now. Getting Savage off the air is our line in the sand with this hate speech.

Climate Change: Elephants in the Room

Huckabee's Theocratic Dreams

UPDATE: Huckabee's dreams seem to be racist as well as theocratic--as witness his defense of the Confederate Flag as part of the state flag of South Carolina.

Wexler's Call for Impeachment Hearings

At this link one can see the powerful floor speech of Congressman Wexler (D-FL) of the House Judiciary Committee calling for hearings on Kucinich's bill to impeach VP Dick Cheney for high crimes and misdemeanors. For those with dial up who cannot watch online video, the transcript is here. One can also sign Wexler's petition calling for Congress to act.

The text of the Kucinich Bill to impeach Cheney (and we want Cheney impeached first so that he doesn't become president) is below. As Wexler says, those who say it is too late to impeach Cheney and Bush signal future officeholders that they can flaunt the Constitution with impunity in the waning months of administration. Defending the Constitution takes precedence over election priorities for any political party. And Bush and Cheney are guilty of crimes that make Watergate look like a tempest in a teapot.

TEXT OF KUCINICH'S BILL: H RES 333

Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to... (Introduced in House)
HRES 333 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 333
Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 24, 2007
Mr. KUCINICH submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
RESOLUTION
Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:

(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction:

(A) `We know they have biological and chemical weapons.' March 17, 2002, Press Conference by Vice President Dick Cheney and His Highness Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Crown Prince of Bahrain at Shaikh Hamad Palace.

(B) `. . . and we know they are pursuing nuclear weapons.' March 19, 2002, Press Briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem.

(C) `And he is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time . . .' March 24, 2002, CNN Late Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.

(D) `We know he's got chemicals and biological and we know he's working on nuclear.' May 19, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(E) `But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons . . . Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.' August 26, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention.

(F) `Based on intelligence that's becoming available, some of it has been made public, more of it hopefully will be, that he has indeed stepped up his capacity to produce and deliver biological weapons, that he has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon, that there are efforts under way inside Iraq to significantly expand his capability.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(G) `He is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(H) `And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.' March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Vice President pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and Congress of the United States.

(A) Vice President Cheney and his Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, made multiple trips to the CIA in 2002 to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives accounts.

(B) Vice President Cheney sought out unverified and ultimately inaccurate raw intelligence to prove his preconceived beliefs. This strategy of cherry picking was employed to influence the interpretation of the intelligence.

(3) The Vice President's actions corrupted or attempted to corrupt the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, an intelligence document issued on October 1, 2002, and carefully considered by Congress prior to the October 10, 2002, vote to authorize the use of force. The Vice President's actions prevented the necessary reconciliation of facts for the National Intelligence Estimate which resulted in a high number of dissenting opinions from technical experts in two Federal agencies.

(A) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate stated `Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute it's nuclear weapons program INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result INR is unable to predict that Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.'.

(B) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate also stated that `Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.'.

(C) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate references a Department of Energy opinion by stating that `INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the US Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose.'.

The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.

In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Article II

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:

(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda:

(A) `His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists.' December 2, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference.

(B) `His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.' January 30, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to 30th Political Action Conference in Arlington, Virginia.

(C) `We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization.' March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(D) `We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and chemical weapons . . .' September 14, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(E) `Al Qaeda had a base of operation there up in Northeastern Iraq where they ran a large poisons factory for attacks against Europeans and U.S. forces.' October 3, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney at Bush-Cheney '04 Fundraiser in Iowa.

(F) `He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda providing training to Al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases, and conventional bombs.' October 10, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to the Heritage Foundation.

(G) `Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services have worked together on a number of occasions.' January 9, 2004, Rocky Mountain News interview with Vice President Cheney.

(H) `I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.' January 22, 2004, NPR: Morning Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.

(I) `First of all, on the question of--of whether or not there was any kind of relationship, there clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to; the evidence is overwhelming.' June 17, 2004, CNBC: Capital Report interview with Vice President Cheney.

(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no credible evidence existed of a working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, a fact articulated in several official documents, including:

(A) A classified Presidential Daily Briefing ten days after the September 11, 2001, attacks indicating that the United States intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was `scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda'.

(B) Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 044-02, issued in February 2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency, which challenged the credibility of information gleaned from captured al Qaeda leader al-Libi. The DIA report also cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy: `Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.'.

(C) A January 2003 British intelligence classified report on Iraq that concluded that `there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network'.

The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3,300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.

In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Article III

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, to wit:

(1) Despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States and despite the turmoil created by United States invasion of Iraq, the Vice President has openly threatened aggression against Iran as evidenced by the following:

(A) `For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.' March 7, 2006, Speech of Vice President Cheney to American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference.

(B) `But we've also made it clear that all options are on the table.' January 24, 2007, CNN Situation Room interview with Vice President Cheney.

(C) `When we--as the President did, for example, recently--deploy another aircraft carrier task force to the Gulf, that sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat.'

January 29, 2007, Newsweek interview with Vice President Cheney.

(D) `But I've also made the point and the President has made the point that all options are still on the table.' February 24, 2007, Vice President Cheney at Press Briefing with Australian Prime Minister in Sydney, Australia.

(2) The Vice President, who repeatedly and falsely claimed to have had specific, detailed knowledge of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities, is no doubt fully aware of evidence that demonstrates Iran poses no real threat to the United States as evidenced by the following:

(A) `I know that what we see in Iran right now is not the industrial capacity you can [use to develop a] bomb.' Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.

(B) Iran indicated its `full readiness and willingness to negotiate on the modality for the resolution of the outstanding issues with the IAEA, subject to the assurances for dealing with the issues in the framework of the Agency, without the interference of the United Nations Security Council'. IAEA Board Report, February 22, 2007.

(C) `. . . so whatever they have, what we have seen today, is not the kind of capacity that would enable them to make bombs.' Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.

(3) The Vice President is fully aware of the actions taken by the United States towards Iran that are further destabilizing the world as evidenced by the following:

(A) The United States has refused to engage in meaningful diplomatic relations with Iran since 2002, rebuffing both bilateral and multilateral offers to dialogue.

(B) The United States is currently engaged in a military buildup in the Middle East that includes the increased presence of the United States Navy in the waters near Iran, significant United States Armed Forces in two nations neighboring to Iran, and the installation of anti-missile technology in the region.

(C) News accounts have indicated that military planners have considered the B61-11, a tactical nuclear weapon, as one of the options to strike underground bunkers in Iran.

(D) The United States has been linked to anti-Iranian organizations that are attempting to destabilize the Iranian government, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a terrorist organization.

(E) News accounts indicate that United States troops have been ordered into Iran to collect data and establish contact with anti-government groups.

(4) In the last three years the Vice President has repeatedly threatened Iran. However, the Vice President is legally bound by the U.S. Constitution's adherence to international law that prohibits threats of use of force.

(A) Article VI of the United States Constitution states, `This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.' Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States.

(B) The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter, a treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter states, `All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.' The threat of force is illegal.

(C) Article 51 lays out the only exception, `Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.' Iran has not attacked the United States; therefore any threat against Iran by the United States is illegal.

The Vice President's deception upon the citizens and Congress of the United States that enabled the failed United States invasion of Iraq forcibly altered the rules of diplomacy such that the Vice President's recent belligerent actions towards Iran are destabilizing and counterproductive to the national security of the United States.

In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

(Emphasis mine. )

Article 3 is especially relevant given that Bush-Cheney are still trying to start war with Iran--including by manufacturing incidents, like LBJ did with the Gulf of Tonkin for Vietnam in '62, etc. The Gulf of Hormuz incident was partially hyped and partially fabricated as Keith Olbermann showed last night on MSNBC's Countdown.