Kentucky Fried Politics

Suspension

2008-04-18T00:28:00.002-04:00

Well, Folks, I have decided to suspend this blog until at least after the Democratic Primary. My mental health needs it. I am sorry for those who appreciate it. Two blogs were too much while also trying to write my second book and raise a family.

I will be resuming blogging at my other blog, Levellers, this weekend, but will try to keep that to once a week. I was just too much in danger of becoming another angry white man--this time on the Left. I have not dropped out of political participation (will be phone banking for Obama on Sunday p.m.), but I found myself too stressed to keep doing what I was doing.

Good bye for now, gentle folk.

Mental Health Break

2008-03-20T03:17:00.001-04:00

I am taking a blogging holiday in order to regain my lost mental equilibrium. I am currently too close to things emotionally.

Alert to the Right: Michelle Obama Has Always Loved This Country

2008-02-20T17:56:00.003-05:00

The Right has tried to take Michelle Obama's remark the other day that "for the first time in [her] adult life" she was "really proud of [her] country" and make it a charge that she is not patriotic. (John McCain had Cindy declare repeatedly her pride in this nation.) The context showed that Michelle Obama was speaking of the engagement of long apathetic voters, the desire for change, the work to make a better nation and world. And, although the off the cuff wording was an unfortunate gaffe in an election, God knows I've been deeply embarrassed by my country these last years (invading Iraq, killing civilians, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, waterboarding, Plamegate, etc., etc.).

But here's Michelle Obama in Rhode Island, today, explaining the remark. Take that, Bill O'Reilly.

Anti-Hillary Sentiment Rising Among Leading Feminists

2008-02-20T17:01:00.002-05:00

Feminists for Peace created a petition one week before Super-Tuesday to counter the NY chapter of NOW's claim that support for Obama was a betrayal of feminism and women. It had a 100 signers originally. It now has over 1,000. See the update here.

Obama's Accomplishments: Partial List

2008-02-20T16:16:00.002-05:00

Last night, Chris Matthews completely humiliated a Texas State Senator who backs Obama because the poor sap couldn't name even one legislative accomplishment by Obama. The Clinton campaign is already running with this in Ohio (Does she now forgive Matthews for his sexist remarks?). The Texas pol's idiocy will be used to help reinforce the stupid line that says that Obama is all talk and no substance. So, here's a partial list of his accomplishments to counter that--use it widely with any folks you know--especially in Texas and Ohio and Pennsylvania.

First, let's remember that the U.S. seldom elects Senators to become president (although with only McCain, Clinton, and Obama left as viable candidates, we will this time). The last time was with JFK who also had not been in the U.S. Senate long. LBJ doesn't count because he was VP first--as was Gore who was robbed of his presidency. The kind of personality who does well as President, an executive personality, is not the same kind who does well as a longtime legislator. Clinton and McCain are both legislators. McCain's problems with the Rightwing of the GOP stem from his working with Dems to get legislation accomplished. Clinton is also an accomplished legislator who likes the give and take tradeoffs of the Senate--but which make you look like a flip-flopper as a presidential candidate. Obama's brevity in the Senate (and John Edwards' if he had become the nominee) actually makes him a better presidential candidate.

But here's the partial accomplishment list:

Graduated the first black president of the Harvard Law Review.
Passed over 600 high money law firm offers to return to work as a community organizer in Chicago and to become a civil rights attorney at a fraction of the pay the big money law firms offered.
In Illinois State Senate, added health insurance for 20, 000 children, got welfare reforms that reversed some of the damage of the Clinton-Gingrich era, increased earned income tax credits for low income families, and increased the minimum wage.
Reformed the broken Illinois death penalty system. Required that all interrogations be video recorded so that coerced confessions would be thrown out. Passed Illinois Senate 58-0. Signed by GOP Gov. who rejected first version of the bill. Obama won by building public support (bottom up change) and consensus with conservative opponents.
Opposed invasion of Iraq nearly a year before invasion--taking a risky position as a candidate for U.S. Senate. Correctly predicted that the reasons for the invasion (WMDs, links to 9/11, etc.) would be revealed as bogus. Also predicted that the invasion would be of undetermined length (5 years and counting), undetermined cost (billions already), undetermined/shifting objectives (mission creep), with likelihood of civil war. All this was accurate, but against the common talking points of the day.
Along with GOP Sen. Richard Lugar, Obama expanded the program to locate and dismantle stray nukes and other WMD from old Soviet Union--making it much less likely that terrorists could obtain them.
Along with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), worked to pass the toughest ethics reform in Congressional history, insisting on tougher restrictions around gifts and meals. Extended the interval between time when exiting members of Congress can turn around and become lobbyists.
Toured Kuwait, Jordan, Israel and Palestinian territories on fact-finding mission. Met with Hamas leaders and told them that U.S. would never recognize them until they renounced their mission to attack Israel.
Co-sponsored comprehensive immigration reform bill with Sen. McCain and Sen. Kennedy--the bill that the far Right has forced McCain to abandon. Passed Senate 62-36 but died in the House.
Unveiled anti-global warming plan before Detroit automakers: told auto executives that they would need, at minimum, to increase fuel efficiency 3% across the board per year while also producing affordable flex-fuel, hybrid, and electric vehicles quickly.
Many aisle-crossing bi-partisan solutions in 8 years of Illinois Senate and 2 years in U.S. Senate.
100% approval rating from League of Conservation Voters, Planned Parenthood, NARAL. National Education Association gives him an "A" on most recent report card.
Sponsored 780 bills in Illinois Senate--280 became law during time of GOP dominated Illinois House and GOP Governor.
In 1st year as U.S. Senator, held 39 town hall meetings across Illinois, sponsored 152 bills and resolutions, co-sponsored 427 more.
Voted against Kyle-Lieberman bill that seemed to give Bush permission to attack Iran--Clinton voted for it.
Voted for the new bill outlawing waterboarding as torture. McCain, reversing himself, voted against it and has now urged Bush to veto it. Clinton skipped the vote.
Stopped campaigning to help Sen. Dodd in first filibuster against the illegal wiretapping bill that would have given immunity to telecoms.
Designated U.S. Senate point person on ethics reform by Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid.

McCain Says, "No, You Can't!'

2008-02-18T10:57:00.000-05:00

McCain: Like Hope, But Different

2008-02-18T10:54:00.002-05:00

Texas Papers Endorse Obama

2008-02-18T10:13:00.002-05:00

Sen. Hillary Clinton is hoping that victories in the delegate rich states of Ohio and Texas on March 4th (when Vermont and Rhode Island also have primaries) will stop Obama's momentum and return her to frontrunner status. She is ahead in polls in both states, though Obama is gaining (and may gain more after tomorrow's races in Hawai'i, Washington State (50% of Washington's delegates were decided in a caucus, the other half will be decided in this primary), and Wisconsin--when Obama can actually campaign in Ohio and Texas).

Now, Obama has won the endorsement of the 7 largest newspapers in Texas: The Fort Worth Star-Telegram says that "Obama is smart and experienced in working directly with low- and middle-class Americans to better their lives, and he brings a message of hope that the country needs in this moment. " The Houston Chronicle says, "Obama vows to reach out to independents and Republicans with a message of inclusion and cooperation. He offers a historic opportunity to elevate national political dialogue to a higher ground." The Dallas Morning-News explains, "Mr. Obama is our choice because of his consistently solid judgment, poise under pressure and ability to campaign effectively without resorting to the divisive politics of the past."

He also won the endorsement of the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, the San Antonio Express-News, the Austin American-Statesman, the El Paso Times, and the influential Texas progressive blog, The Burnt Orange Report.

Tomorrow, as Hawai'i and Washington and Wisconsin vote, Obama will hold rallies in San Antonio and Houston.

Yesterday, Obama campaigned in Youngstown, OH. Ohio's largest paper has endorsed Obama and yesterday he picked up the endorsement of the Ohio State Treasurer. He has more ground to make up in Ohio than Texas, but labor is beginning to go his way and that could spell big trouble for Sen. Clinton (especially if John Edwards endorses him and campaigns in Ohio).

Updates

2008-02-18T09:44:00.002-05:00

I've again been offline while ill. Meanwhile many things have happened--some good, some bad. Good things include Obama's win of Maine, the Senate's anti-torture bill, and the House Dems refusing to cave on telecom immunity for illegal spying. Bad things include Andrew Horne's exit from the Democratic primary--our best chance to Ditch Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Dems caving on telecom immunity, and open defense of torture by a sitting Supreme Court Justice (Scalia--surely an impeachable offense?).

I'll try to catch up and keep up, now that I am well.

Obama Sweeps 3 States & a Territory

2008-02-10T02:04:00.000-05:00

This week Obama picked up endorsements from Iowa Gov. Culver (D-IA) (He tried to stay neutral while Iowa was front and center, but had some family members involved in the Clinton campaign and others in the John Edwards campaign. Hey, it's another superdelegate for Obama, anyway.), Washington State's Gov., Chris Gregoire (D-WA) and Rep. John Yarmuth (D-3rd-KY). He also picked up the endorsement of Ohio's largest newspaper, The Cleveland Plain Dealer--which is also the hometown newspaper of Cleveland, the most heavily Democratic city in the swing state of Ohio. 141 delegates are at stake in Ohio on March 4th.

Today, he won the Louisiana Primary (57% to Clinton's 36%), and Nebraska (68% to Clinton's 32%) and Washington State Caucuses (68% to Clinton's 31%). He also won the primary in the U.S. Virgin Islands so strongly that he will pick up all 3 of its delegates (whereas on Tues. Clinton won American Samoa, the only other non-state territory to have yet voted, in a way that split their delegates--2 for Clinton and 1 for Obama).

This brings Obama ahead in the delegate count:

Prior to tonight (pledged delegates only): Obama: 910 : Clinton: 882 (2, 025 needed to win)

The math for tonight suggests the following new totals:

Louisiana delegate projection: Obama: 32; Clinton: 24

Nebraska delegate projection: Obama: 16; Clinton: 8

Washington (State) delegate projection: Obama: 52; Clinton: 26

U.S. Virgin Islands delegate projection: Obama: 3; Clinton: 0

If these projections hold up, this gives us a new total of Obama: 1,013; Clinton: 940.

When one counts the superdelegates, Clinton regains the lead, though not by terribly much. And superdelegates can change their minds--the majority of them haven't decided for anyone and DNC Chair Howard Dean will put pressure on the superdelegates not to override the choice of the voters. However, it remains unclear whether either candidate can win the 2, 025 necessary for nomination if they keep dividing fairly evenly in the big states.

A movement has arisen to count the delegates from Michigan and Florida (stripped of their delegates by the DNC for moving up their primaries too early), not by simply seating them as Clinton wants (hers was the only name on Michigan's ballot and since candidates pledged not to campaign in these states, her greater name recognition led her to win both MI and FL--which is why she wants them to count), but by having them hold caucuses, instead, in early April--prior to Pennsylvania's 22 April primary. I think that makes sense. I never agreed with stripping these crucial states of their delegates, but would like fair contests for them. I think Obama has a better shot at winning a caucus in MI, but FL Dems tend to be more conservative, so he would have to work hard to keep her from winning by more than 55%. It does help that he does better with caucuses, because of the better ground game--an area where Clinton was expected to excel.

Tomorrow: Maine, which I hope will be another Obama victory.

Yes, we can!

Frank Schaeffer on Being a Pro-Life Obama Supporter

2008-02-08T15:50:00.000-05:00

First, let me say that I am a strong defender of the legality of Roe v. Wade. I think decisions about abortions should be made by a woman, her doctor, with family and spiritual input. But I used to be on the other side of the issue, so I understand, as many liberals do not, how those who are against abortion rights think. Most of them are NOT trying to oppress women, but trying to defend those they see as the most defenseless of all--unborn children (and they don't see fetuses as simply potential children).

I also want to reinforce Sen. Obama's pro-choice credentials. He got perfect ratings from the National Abortion Rights Action League and from the National Organization for Women on this issue in both the Illinois State Senate and the U.S. Senate. But I think we should show the following article, reprinted from The Huffington Post, to our conservative friends who are against abortion. I think it is very compelling. It is written by one of the founders of the conservative pro-life movement, Frank Schaeffer.
____

Why I'm Pro-life and Pro-Obama

I am an Obama supporter. I am also pro-life. In fact, without my family's involvement in the pro-life movement it would not exist as we know it. Evangelicals weren't politicized until after my late father and evangelical leader Francis Schaeffer, Dr. Koop (Reagan's soon-to-be Surgeon General) and I stirred them up over the issue of abortion in the mid-1970s. Our Whatever Happened to the Human Race? book, movie series and seminars brought the evangelicals into the pro-life movement.

(Dad's political influence persists. Last week one of my father's followers -- Mike Huckabee -- was interviewed by Katie Couric, along with all the other presidential candidates. Couric asked the candidates if they were to be sent to a desert island and could only take one book besides the Bible, what would that that book be? Huckabee answered that he'd take my father's book Whatever Happened To The Human Race?)

Fast forward...
In 2000, we elected a president who claimed he believed God created the earth and who, as president, put car manufacturers and oil company's interests ahead of caring for that creation. We elected a pro-life Republican Congress that did nothing to actually care for pregnant women and babies. And they took their sincere evangelical followers for granted, and played them for suckers.

The so-called evangelical leadership -- Dobson, Robertson et al. also played the pro-life community for suckers. While thousands of men and women in the crisis pregnancy movement gave of themselves to help women and babies, their evangelical "leaders" did little more than cash in on fundraising opportunities and represent themselves as power-brokers to the craven politicians willing to kowtow to them.

Fast forward...
Today when I listen to Obama speak (and to his remarkable wife, Michelle) what I hear is a world view that actually nurtures life. Obama is trying to lead this country to a place where the intrinsic worth of each individual is celebrated. A leader who believes in hope, the future, trying to save our planet and providing a just and good life for everyone is someone who is actually pro-life.

Conversely the "pro-life" ethic of George W. Bush manifested itself in a series of squandered opportunities to call us to our better natures. After 9/11, Bush told most Americans to go shopping while saddling the few who volunteered for military service with endless tours of duty (something I know a little about since my son was a Marine and deployed several times). The Bush doctrine of life was expressed by starting an unnecessary war in Iraq that has killed thousands of Americans and wounded tens of thousands more.

The society that Obama is calling us to sacrifice for is a place wherein life would be valued not just talked about. As he said in his speech delivered on February 6 in New Orleans, "Too often, we lose our sense of common destiny; that understanding that we are all tied together; that when a woman has less than nothing in this country, that makes us all poorer." Obama was talking about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, but his words also apply to our overall view of ourselves.

Regardless of the official position of the Supreme Court on abortion, a country in which all Americans are offered some sort of dignity and hopeful future would be a place conducive to the kind of optimism each of us must hold in our hearts if we are to welcome children into this world. But if our highest aspiration is to be a consumer with no thought or care for our neighbor, we will remain a culture in which abortion is not only inevitable but logical.What we need in America is a spiritual rebirth, a turning away from the false value of consumerism and utilitarianism that have trumped every aspect of human life. To implement this vision we need leaders that inspire but to do so they have to be what they say they are. It's not about policy it's about character.
Obama's rivals for the nomination -- the Clintons -- do not inspire. When the Clintons were in the White House they talked about humane values while Bill Clinton betrayed every single person who voted for him by carrying on an unseemly sexual dalliance in the Oval Office with a young woman barely out of her teens. Since that time the Clintons have enriched themselves through their connections to a point where they're able to make a $5 million personal loan to their campaign. For someone who says she has spent "the last 35 years of my life as an advocate for children" and/or "fighting for healthcare" that's a lot of money to have collected through doing good works. Presidential Mother Teresa wannabes shouldn't be doing deals with uranium mining outfits in Kazakhstan while schmoozing with the likes of President Nursultan Nazarbayev and wealthy mining magnates -- not if they want the moral authority to lead.

Similarly the Republicans have also been hypocrites while talking big, for instance about their pro-life ethic. But what have they achieved? First, through their puritanical war on sex education they've hindered our country from actually preventing unwanted pregnancy. Second, through the Republican Party's marriage to the greediest and most polluting earth-destroying corporations they've created a climate (both moral and physical) that has scorched the earth for-profit, with no regard to future generations whatsoever. The Republicans are to the pro-life movement what the Clintons are to selfless public service.

The real solution to abortion is to change the heart of America, not the law. We need to stop seeing ourselves as consumers. We need to stop seeing ourselves as me and begin to think of we. Our country needs someone to show us a better way, a president who is what he seems, someone with actual moral authority that our diverse population can believe in who has the qualities that make us want to follow him. Obama is that person.

Frank Schaeffer is a writer and author of CRAZY FOR GOD -- How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back

McCain: Less Jobs, More Wars

2008-02-08T14:51:00.000-05:00

5 Reasons Hillary Should Be Worried

2008-02-06T15:50:00.000-05:00

From The Politico comes this excellent article by Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen.

Highlights on the 5 reasons:

She lost the delegate derby. Pure and simple, this is a war to win delegates, one that might not be decided until this summer’s Democratic convention. And when the smoke cleared this morning, it appeared that Barack Obama had ended up with slightly more delegates in the 22 states. Obama’s campaign says the senator finished ahead by 14 delegates. With results still coming in, Clinton’s campaign says the candidates finished within five or six delegates of each other. Either way, Super Tuesday was essentially a draw. Clinton may still hold the edge overall, but Obama is closing in rapidly.
She essentially tied Obama in the popular vote. (My note: At last count, Clinton appeared to have a VERY slight lead, here.) Each won just over 7.3 million votes, a level of parity that was unthinkable as recently as a few weeks ago. At the time, national polls showed Clinton with a commanding lead — in some cases, by 10 points or more. That dominance is now gone. One reason is that polls and primary results reveal that the more voters get to know Obama, the more they seem to like him. This is especially troubling for Clinton since the schedule slows dramatically now and a full month will pass before the next big-state showdown. All of this allows candidates ample time to introduce themselves to voters in each state — which plays to Obama’s core strengths.
She lost more states. Obama carried 14 states, six more than Clinton, and showed appeal in every geographical region. His win in bellwether Missouri was impressive by nearly every measure, marked by victories among men and women, secular and churchgoing voters, and urban and suburban voters. (My note: If Obama squeaks out a win today in NM--we may not know until tonight sometime--it will show he can win in a heavily Latino state--even more than CO--where the popular Latino Gov. "all but" endorsed Clinton.
She lost the January cash war. Money chases momentum, so Obama crushing’s 2-to-1 fundraising victory last month is revealing. He raised more than $31 million; Clinton raised less than $14 million. The implication is hard to ignore: Democratic activists and donors are flocking to Obama at a pace that could have a profound effect on the race going forward.
The calendar is her enemy. Now that more than half the states have weighed in, there is a fairly predictable formula for determining who is most likely to win the upcoming contests. In caucus states, Obama’s organizational strength shines: He has won seven of eight. Up next are three more caucus states, Washington, Nebraska and Maine. Obama also runs tremendously well in states with large African-American populations, another promising sign since next Tuesday’s three primaries are in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia — all of which have significant percentages of black voters. Then comes another caucus state, Hawaii, where Obama is viewed as a native son. The bottom line is that it figures to be another month before Clinton hits a stretch of states — places like Ohio and Pennsylvania — where she will be strongly favored to win. So it couldn’t be any clearer as to why the supposedly inevitable candidacy is anything but — even when she’s supposedly winning.

I would add that Obama has time to eat away at her Ohio and PA leads and to win big in TX in March. Also, even if the media keep spinning last night in Clinton's favor, it will count in the popular mind as one win. Obama has many chances to win during the rest of the month. The Clinton spin that they "stopped the Obama momentum" ain't true. They just slowed it down. Her desire for a series of new debates with him shows how desperate she is for free air time.

Obama's Super Tuesday: Jack & Jill's View

2008-02-06T15:09:00.000-05:00

Here is an excellent analysis of the results from Jack and Jill Politics.

Obama's Super Tuesday - The Morning After

Less than one year ago, when he announced, Barack Obama was a sitting United States Senator of about 2 years.

Hillary Clinton was INEVITABLE.

And February 5th was to be her coronation.

Skeptical Brotha would say, with reference to the Clinton candidacy, that ' Resistance Is Futile'. I told him, way back then, it might be futile, but some fights, you just gotta take.

On February 5, 2008, Barack Obama took on the most formidable political machine in Democratic Party Politics, and beat it in 13 out of the 22 contests.(Might be 14, but the vote isn't totally in from New Mexico)

He began with absolutely NOTHING in February 2007, and was able, in about a year, to put together a grassroots campaign nationally that not only is self-financing, but also gets out the vote.

A Black man won Alabama and Georgia.

A Black man won states like Utah, Idaho, North Dakota, that only see Black folk on tv and in the movies.

Look at the list of his victories:
Obama has won the following states:
Alaska
Utah
Colorado
Idaho
Minnesota
Connecticut
Kansas
North Dakota
Alabama
Delaware
Missouri
Illinois
Georgia

As for those states he lost:
Two weeks ago, Hillary was leading in MA by 37 points, Obama lost to her by 15 points. He erased a 22% deficit in less than two weeks. In NY, she was ahead by 28% on January 26th, but she ended up beating him by 14%, cutting her lead in half. Same thing in New Jersey - he lost, but not by what he was down two weeks.
He is a strong national candidate, as of this morning.

I agree with Angry Independent that we, will have to make the case for Obama, for those that support him, so I will bring up points that out alert readers have made:
Coming out of South Carolina, Obama was close to being branded the ' Black Candidate', due to the Dogwhistle Race Baiting of the Clintons. And, while the Kennedy Endorsement didn't 'deliver' Massachusetts, Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal Constitution made a brilliant observation:
The Kennedy Endorsement stopped, dead in its tracks, the 'Ghettoization' of Obama. And, indeed, it did.Super Tuesday helped put the nail in the coffin about Obama being ' The Black Candidate'. It was very convenient for the MSM, as they went along with The Clintons to try and press the narrative, even after Obama won in 90%+ White Iowa, and came within 2 points in 90%+ New Hampshire, and won Rural Nevada.But, winning in Alaska, Utah, Idaho and North Dakota, will put that ' Black Candidate' mess to bed.

The ' Hispanics won't vote for a Black Candidate' Memo. It's a blanket statement, and it's not true universally. It depends upon THE STATE, and that is encouraging too.

Would WHITE MEN who chose John Edwards, give Obama a shake? The answer, seems to be a YES, even in the Deep South.

Could Obama win in the 'Heartland', and the victories in Kansas and Missouri say YES.

Obama won more states and more delegates (excluding super delegates). Senator Clinton only exceeded 60% in one state, TN,while Senator Obama exceeded 60% in at least six states. Senator Obama did NOT lose any state that he was expected to win, but he did pick up states, namely CT. In fact, he was still polling behind her in AL up until yesterday.Clinton didn't crack 60% in her own state.I don't think it's insignificant that Senator Obama made history yesterday by becoming the first African American to win state-wide in several states, including MO.Obama made considerable gains among White men and women, solidified his base, made slight in roads with Latinos, but Clinton only held her base.

On the delegate front, here's the news this morning:
The Obama camp projects topping Clinton by nine delegates, 845 to 836.NBC News, which is projecting delegates based on the Democratic Party's complex formula, figures Obama will wind up with 840 to 849 delegates, versus 829 to 838 for Clinton.

IT IS A RACE NOW, folks.Super Tuesday was supposed to break Barack Obama, and it didn't.

Super Tuesday was supposed to show that he wasn't ready for the big stage, and it didn't.

Super Tuesday was supposed to send Obama packing back to Illinois, and it didn't.

He won more states.
He won more diversity of states.
He won more delegates.

YES.WE.CAN.

Clinton Wins "Big" States; Obama Wins More States; Delegate Count Close

2008-02-06T12:15:00.000-05:00

Well, while last night was not as good as I hoped it would be for Barack Obama, it was about as good as could reasonably be expected given that a week ago Clinton still had a 20 point lead nationally and commanding leads in most of the primary and caucus states up for grabs, yesterday. Given the short time frame since his SC win, Obama did very, very well. I would like to have seen him pick up MA and AZ (never really believing he had a chance for a complete win in CA), but am otherwise very content. Had there been 2 weeks between SC and "Super Tuesday," instead of one week, I am convinced that last night would have been very bad for Sen. Clinton, instead of this near-draw. Remember, this crazy schedule was partly influenced by the Clintons who had planned to end the primary season early. Until Obama's surprise win in Iowa last month, Clinton believed she would have sewn up the nomination on 05 February. She hasn't and Obama is in great shape to win the races that follow (except, possibly, PA, where she has a tremendous following).

Obama won all 7 of the caucus states.
Obama won most of the "red" states which usually vote Republican, but could possibly flip Democratic in the Fall if he is the nominee.
Obama made gains among Latinos, though Clinton still has an advantage among them. (At least this should end the stupid media claim that "Latinos won't vote for a black man!")
Obama made large gains among Clinton's key strength--women, especially white women.
Obama won more white males, especially in the South, so some real racial progress has been made.
The Obama campaign claims it won more delegates, but I think the final results are not yet in for delegate count. It seems fairly close. (Obama claims it is 847 to 834, not counting unpledged superdelegates.) ABC News' delegate counter claims Clinton now leads with 872 to Obama's 793. Even if ABC is right, that's only a 79 delegate lead for Clinton which can erased later this month.

State by State results:

AL: Obama ; Huckabee wins for GOP

AK: Obama; Romney for GOP

AR: Clinton; Huckabee for GOP. Note: Clinton was 1st Lady of Arkansas before she was U.S. First Lady and Huckabee followed Bill Clinton as Arkansas governor. So, this was locked up for both.

AZ: Clinton; McCain for GOP. This was a slight disappointment since it looked like Obama had a real chance here (and it was close). Gov. Janet Napolitano (D), who is very popular, endorsed Obama and is on his shortlist for VP. This is McCain's home state, of course. Notice that Clinton and Obama split the Latino vote here fairly evenly.

CA: Clinton; McCain for GOP. The final delegate split in CA will be interesting.

CO: Obama; Romney for GOP. Obama won the Latino vote here. Denver, CO will host the '08 Democratic Convention.

CT: Obama; McCain for GOP. This was a big win for Obama since CT is New York's "backyard," and since Clinton is a favorite daughter from her years in Yale Law School.

DE: Obama; McCain for GOP.

GA: Obama; Huckabee for GOP.

ID: Obama; No GOP race. Another red state victory for Obama, but it is doubtful that ANY Democratic candidate can carry Idaho in the general election.

IL: Obama; McCain for GOP. This was Obama's home turf, but Clinton grew up here and hoped to make inroads (and failed). 153 delegates were at stake.

KS: Obama; No GOP race yesterday. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D), an Obama supporter, will probably be on his shortlist for running mates.

MA: Clinton; Romney for GOP. This was my big disappointment. I knew Clinton had enjoyed a huge lead, but I thought with Gov. Deval Patrick (D), and both of MA's senators (Kennedy and Kerry) backing Obama, he might pull off a win. Hard to beat the clock. Clinton, naturally, is crowing over this one, saying that she "beat the Kennedys" in there own backyard.

MN: Obama; Romney for GOP. Recent polls had shown a 6% lead for Clinton, so this was a good win. MN is a strong peace state and I think the MoveOn.org endorsement may have helped Obama put this one over the top.

MO: Obama; McCain for GOP. This was a squeaker and the AP wire service and some TV networks originally called this for Clinton! This will be a key battleground in the gen. election: Missouri has voted with the presidential winner every time since Harry Truman in '48! It is a "middle" middle America. I think Obama can take McCain here, but can Clinton?

MT: No Dem. race, yesterday; Romney for GOP.

ND: Obama; Romney for GOP.

NJ: Clinton; McCain for GOP. Too many people were surprised at this result. Yes, recent polls had shown it to be competitive, but when Obama flew in for a last minute campaign stop this weekend, he received a far smaller crowd than everywhere else, which I thought was a telling sign. NJ seldom votes for a different candidate than NY and is in the same TV broadcast areas.

NM: Still too close to call! This would be a significant victory for Obama: Heavy Latino population and Gov. Richardson (D) (himself a former presidential candidate) seemed to "all but" endorse Clinton by watching the Superbowl Sunday with fmr. Pres. Bill Clinton. No GOP race yesterday.

NY: Clinton; McCain for GOP. Since Clinton is Sen. from NY, there was little doubt she would win. I will be interested to see if Obama managed to win NYC (as seemed possible) and poach a number of delegates from her.

OK: Clinton; McCain for GOP. Clinton had a big lead here and Obama didn't have time to campaign here.

TN: Clinton; Huckabee for GOP.

UT: Obama; Romney for GOP.

WV: No Dem. race yesterday; Huckabee for GOP.

American Samoa: Clinton; No GOP race here yesterday.

No results found, yet for Democrats Abroad.

Next up:

Saturday 09 Feb. : Louisiana (primary; 56 delegates at stake; Obama favored to win); Nebraska (caucus, 24 del.; Obama favored to win); Washington state (caucus; 78 dels; Clinton favored since Gov. Christine Gregoire, and Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell have all backed her. But Washington is a fairly liberal state with a strong peace contingency, so Obama may be able to pull this one out with a good ground game.); U.S. Virgin Islands (primary; 3 del.; I don't know who to favor here: Clinton has an advantage in U.S. territories because of name recognition--they are mostly too far away for the candidates to campaign in person. But the Virgin Islands have a large black population, so we'll see.)

Sunday 10 Feb.: Maine (caucus, 24 del.; Is Maine like New Hampshire?)

Tuesday 12 Feb.: District of Columbia (primary, 15 del.; Obama favored to win); Maryland (primary, 70 del.; Obama favored to win); Virginia (primary, 83 del.; Obama favored to win).

Tuesday 19 Feb.: Hawaii (caucus, 20 del.; I have no idea who is favored); Wisconsin (primary, 74 del., Obama favored to win)

Clinton is counting on the large states of Ohio and Texas in March and Pennsylvania in April, but Obama now has more money and may be able to roll into March better equipped. The longer the race goes on, the better his chances.

Jack and Jill Politics

2008-02-05T17:04:00.000-05:00

Since I am trying to avoid watching anything about Tsunami Tuesday until tomorrow (less stress, longer life), this is a good time for me to profile the blog Jack and Jill Politics, run by Jack Turner and Jill Tubman. This is a major U.S. political blog from an African-American middle class viewpoint.

The "blogosphere" is dominated by the voices of white men, but that is changing. Jack and Jill Politics is an excellent way for progressive whites to keep in touch with the views of African-Americans. Yes, having "real black friends" would also be good, but, let's face it, there's a certain amount of self-censorship that happens in mixed-race social situations. In many cases, there is still much at stake in workplace relations, etc. that would be risked if "full disclosure" came in every conversation. Sad, but true.

Also, while there are exceptions (such as the church I attend), whites and blacks mostly still worship in different settings, live in different neighborhoods (mine is one of the few partial exceptions in Louisville), go to different places for entertainment, etc. And the dominant group usually knows less about the "minority" groups than they (originally for survival reasons) know about the majority. (Surveys have shown that African-Americans are much better at predicting white answers than vice versa.)

So, fellow white progressives, I urge you to decrease your ignorance. One way is to read regularly on black political blogs. There are many of them, but I am pushing Jack and Jill Politics first because it was one of the earliest this progressive cracker found. Which is more helpful during an election year that may result in the first black president? Watching a bunch of white men on TV talk about "the black vote" or read the thoughts of active, politically-informed African-Americans? Hmm.

Bluegrass Roots Endorses Obama

2008-02-05T16:16:00.000-05:00

The owners/editors of Bluegrass Roots, one of the best progressive, Democratic political blogs in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, have endorsed Barack Obama for President. This is all the more significant since they were both previously Edwards supporters, as I was. You can read their endorsement here. It explains why they endorsed Edwards and why, once Edwards dropped out, they switched to Obama. I hope this is a trend among the netroots in KY.

Yes We Can

2008-02-04T22:11:00.000-05:00

The following video was created by Obama supporters. It sets his NH primary speech to music. I only wish I had not been sick so that I could have sent this to people throughout Super Tuesday states this weekend.

Obama/Clinton in Statistical Dead Heat on Eve of Super Tuesday

2008-02-04T21:12:00.001-05:00

I have been ill for a few days--too ill to come down to a cold basement and blog or even check email. I will not watch the Super Tuesday returns tomorrow because my nerves would give out and I might have a relapse.

Because this is all about delegates, Obama doesn't have to win tomorrow--just keep from losing. If he keeps the delegate count close, plus wins enough states outright for some psychological victories, then the momentum should continue to be on his side in the races that follow tomorrow. If, however, Clinton wins big early, she won't likely win enough delegates tomorrow to win the nomination outright (as she once dreamed--this schedule was originally--back when she was considered the "inevitable" nominee--urged on party leaders by her campaign so that she could wrap up the nomination early and spend most of the Spring preparing for the GOP in the Fall). But she might stop Obama's momentum tomorrow as she did in NH.

5 key variables:

Early voting. Many primaries allowed for early voting (which may have been 40% of the total in California!) when Clinton still had double-digit leads over Obama and 85% of the institutional Democratic Party support. It could be her firewall against the Obama momentum.
Latinos: I do not buy into the media hype about Latinos refusing to vote for African-Americans. But the Clintons (and they come as a package) had a long and good history with Latinos and so, early on, you saw more support for Hillary Clinton by Latinos--just as you early on saw more Clinton support among African-Americans than Obama. That gap is narrowing (or appears to be) and more Latino leaders are endorsing Obama, but we won't know how many until tomorrow night.
Women: 51% of the nation, nearly 60% of the Democratic Party, especially in CA. Can Obama get enough of the women's vote? He did not in NH, but he did in Iowa and S. Carolina and it split fairly evenly in NV. Older white women have been Hillary's base, but is Obama cutting into it--and, if so, has he done so well enough by tomorrow.
Edwards' voters: Where will they go? And, will the Edwards' voters who voted early claim some delegates in several of these primaries and caucuses? (The Edwards' delegates will go to the national convention uncommitted, as will his superdelegates.)
Young voters. This has been Obama's strength, although Clinton has attracted some, too. Their turnout could be the key. And weather could be a key factor in turnout. We've had some of the worst weather this winter this past week.

I'll see everyone on Wednesday. My nerves simply cannot take watching this tomorrow.

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

2008-01-31T16:08:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-30T16:47:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-30T15:42:00.000-05:00

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).

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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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

2008-01-30T15:15:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-29T16:25:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-29T15:16:00.000-05:00

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!

2008-01-29T14:59:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-29T14:34:00.000-05:00

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?"

2008-01-28T15:50:00.001-05:00

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?

2008-01-28T15:35:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-28T14:58:00.001-05:00

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

2008-01-28T11:44:00.001-05:00

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

2008-01-28T10:39:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-28T10:26:00.000-05:00

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!

2008-01-27T17:18:00.001-05:00

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

2008-01-26T23:31:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-26T22:48:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-25T17:46:00.000-05:00

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?

2008-01-25T17:40:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-24T22:35:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-24T14:53:00.000-05:00

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

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!
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!
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.
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

2008-01-23T22:03:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-20T16:45:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-20T15:52:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-19T14:35:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-18T15:55:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-18T14:41:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-18T14:01:00.000-05:00

Huckabee's Theocratic Dreams

2008-01-16T16:24:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-16T15:48:00.000-05:00

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.

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.

Campaign Diaries' Senate Update Rankings

2008-01-14T16:28:00.000-05:00

Campaign Diaries has its latest rankings of Senate races--predicting a net increase for Democrats of 5 seats. See the full rankings here. Okay, here's the bad news: Calling Kentucky a major disappointment for Senate Democrats, Campaign Diaries predicts McConnell will retain his seat. They claim the failure of KY Dems to get our act together as a major reason. With this, I agree. But I think Andrew Horne can still prove the pundits wrong and help us Ditch Mitch in '08. (The Horne kickoff party is tomorrow night. See here. The suggested contribution to bring at the door is $100, but bring whatever you can.) However, for this to happen, we have to keep the idiots at the DSCC from trying for DINOS like Bruce Lunsford or self-funding millionaires like Greg Fischer and ignoring Horne! ) The DSCC is afraid of grassroots campaigns like Horne's because they are part of the DLC-controlled, corporate Democrat, establishment. This is how they blew Ned Lamont's progressive challenge to DINO "independent" Joe Lieberman in CT in '06!
You'd think they would learn, wouldn't you? The DSCC should make getting rid of McConnell one of its highest priorities. But they are afraid of Horne because of his backing by progressive grassroots groups like VoteVets.org and Change for Kentucky (the state chapter of the progressive Democracy for America).

So, KY Dems: How much do you want to get rid of McConnell? This is our last chance for another 6 years! If you hunger for it as much as I do, then forget the DSCC and start contributing to Horne's campaign, now! Since Crit Luallen failed to run, Horne has been our only real chance at unseating McConnell and getting a decent KY Senator in '08. But we can't count on the DSCC. We'll have to raise the money, make connections throughout the state, and get out the vote ourselves. Let's get to work.

Clintons Misstate Hillary's Position on War--and Obama's--Again

2008-01-14T15:49:00.000-05:00

In defending her 2002 war vote, both Sen. Hillary Clinton and fmr Pres. Bill Clinton have continued to say that this was only a vote to force compliance with WMD inspectors by Saddam Hussein by threatening invasion, not a vote for war. Eric Lipton shows how misleading that defense is here.

The Clintons have also repeatedly used distortions to smear Sen. Obama's record on opposition of the war. Make no mistake: I am one of many who have been disappointed that Obama has not done more since coming to the senate to end this war. But he has done more than Clinton. And her latest smear claim, that Obama in 2002 was in favor of "doing nothing" about Saddam is the adoption of a neo-con talking point: that a strategy of containment and weapons inspection was a "do nothing" strategy (in spite of the fact that a less vigorous form of said strategy was precisely the strategy of the Clinton administration for eight years!). David Corn, who is considerably to the left of Obama on foreign policy (as am I), sets the record straight here.

Once Hillary Clinton complained (rightly) of being the target of a "vast rightwing conspiracy." Now, apparently, she helps the rightwing out when it comes to attacking Obama. This is disgraceful voters should reject it. Further, Democrats of all stripes should be furious. After all, what if Obama becomes the nominee--do even current Clinton supporters want to have to defend him from GOP attacks that were helped by the Clintonians during the primary? I hope not.

Drug Court Revival: And the Need for Increased State Revenue

2008-01-14T14:57:00.000-05:00

The Courier-Journal profiles the good work of the Jefferson County Drug Court in cutting both addiction and recidivism since administration and funding was transferred to the state level. Along with education and everything else, this is at risk with the budget shortfalls inherited by new Gov. Steve Beshear (D-KY) from Ernie Fletcher. Beshear should stop promoting casino gambling as THE cure for the financial ills of the Commonwealth. Casino gambling could produce much-needed state revenue and jobs, but it will take a state constitutional amendment before any building can begin, and we need more immediate sources of cash.

Beshear should push the Legislature to pass increased tobacco taxes (as many have pointed out, KY's is 3rd lowest in the nation and we, consequently, have one of the highest teen smoking rates!). Increased liquor taxes would also help. We might also look at some of the sweetheart tax deals that were given in the '80s and '90s to corporations like Toyota and Humana to locate plants or offices in the Commonwealth. We don't want to scare companies out of state, but some corporations may need to ante-up some more for the sake of the entire Commonwealth--especially for excellent programs like the drug court, for increased mental health services (again, ours is one of the lowest in the nation), and for education at all levels. Growing the state's economy will take higher education levels throughout the state--and that will take money to all public schools, pre-K through university. The improvements we have made in the last decade are at risk of falling backward without increased sources of revenue. We also have an aging infrastructure that needs maintenance and improvement--and this also costs money.

Beshear may be right that gaming is an untapped source of that revenue--although social conservatives are not the only ones worried about the social and economic costs of encouraging a behavior known to be addictive in many--with disastrous personal and social results. (I mean, the state could probably get cash by selling drugs, but no one suggests they do so. Why promote other forms of addiction--which we already do through the lottery. This is different than simply regulating and taxing privately financed forms of addiction such as the tobacco and liquor industries--this is active promotion of a harmful behavior!0

But even if gaming revenue is all that Beshear desires with no social and economic fallout, it will not be sufficient nor come soon enough. Increased "sin taxes" on tobacco and alcohol, and investigating whether or not some KY companies need to have "sweetheart tax deals" (made to attract them to KY) reduced seems only practical. And, much as I hate to suggest it with a falling dollar and looming recession, we might have to investigate whether to increase sales tax to $.o7 and/or property taxes--although I agree with Beshear that Kentuckians are taxed higher than nearby states like Tennessee already.

But we have significant needs that can only be addressed through state programs, however much we also involve non-profit and private sector actors, and those state revenues must come from somewhere. Before the "Reagan revolution" so beloved by Republicans, we could count on some funding through federal revenue sharing--but that is a thing of the past. And, considering the mess the GOP has also made of the federal budget, it won't be coming back any time soon.

No one likes to pay taxes and high taxes can hurt an economy, but we have to break the ideology that taxes are evil in and of themselves. Taxes are a "civic tithe" by which we purchase good government, good education, excellent roads and infrastructure, adequate police, fire, and emergency response protection, and physical and mental health for all citizens, among many other social goods. Private enterprise and the free market are excellent mechanisms for many things, but they will not do it all, nor should they. To promote the common good of this commonwealth will take money--and that means taxes. The very first tax that should be increased is the artificially low tobacco tax.

Politics Update with Humor!

2008-01-14T14:56:00.001-05:00

War Against Women in (DR) Congo

2008-01-14T14:27:00.000-05:00

Last night CBS' famed 60 Minutes weekly newsmagazine aired an excellent segment by CNN's Anderson Cooper, "War Against Women in the Congo." It concerns the systematic use of rape against women and children in the Eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo. The tragedy of the Darfur region of the Sudan is horrid and should not be underplayed, but it gets far more coverage in the U.S. than the horrors in the DRC--even though both the United Nations and Human Rights Watch conclude that what is happening in the DRC is the worst human rights tragedy in the world, currently. Further, although women have been raped in all wars, this is the most systematic use of rape as a weapon of war anywhere--making even the rape camps during the Balkans civil war which broke up Yugoslavia in the '90s or the rapes in the Darfur refugee camps now look small in comparison. DAILY GANG RAPE is now the norm--and reaches children as young as 3 and women in their '90s--and is leaving entire villages traumatized.

The video is disturbing and not for the squeamish. We need to make ending this a high priority of the U.S. State Dept. and the U.S. and international human rights groups and campaigns. The blog, Texas in Africa, run by a Texas poli-sci grad student whose dissertation is on Congo's health system and who has spent considerable time in Africa, has regular updates on all matters African, especially Congo related.

Europe's Comeback Economy: Lessons for America?

2008-01-12T21:44:00.000-05:00

Princeton's Paul Krugman is my favorite mainstream economist. I read this great column on the CommonDreams site. We need useful information like this to keep the Right from scaring us away from a strong social safety net (like universal healthcare) and smart regulation--as if rapacious capitalism, the abandonment of the poor and the rape of the earth were the price to pay for any form of economic growth. Europe is repeatedly mocked. So, here's the truth about Europe.
________

Published on Friday, January 11, 2008 by The New York Times

The Comeback Continent

by Paul Krugman
Today I’d like to talk about a much-derided contender making a surprising comeback, a comeback that calls into question much of the conventional wisdom of American politics. No, I’m not talking about a politician. I’m talking about an economy - specifically, the European economy, which many Americans assume is tired and spent but has lately been showing surprising vitality.

Why should Americans care about Europe’s economy? Well, for one thing, it’s big. The G.D.P. of the European Union is roughly comparable to that of the United States; the euro is almost as important a global currency as the dollar; and the governance of the world financial system is, for practical purposes, equally shared by the European Central Bank and the Federal Reserve.
But there’s another thing: it’s important to get the facts about Europe’s economy right because the alleged woes of that economy play an important role in American political discourse, usually as an excuse for the insecurities and injustices of our own society.

For example, does Hillary Clinton have a plan to cover the millions of Americans who lack health insurance? “She takes her inspiration from European bureaucracies,” sneers Mitt Romney.
Or are top U.S. executives grossly overpaid? According to a Times report, Michael Jensen, a professor emeritus at Harvard’s Graduate School of Business whose theories helped pave the way for gigantic paychecks, considers executive excess “an acceptable price to pay for an American economy that he believes has outstripped Japan and Europe in growth and prosperity.”

In fact, however, tales of a moribund Europe are greatly exaggerated.

It’s true that Europe has had a lot of economic troubles over the past generation. In the mid-1970s the Continent entered a prolonged era of sluggish job creation, which contrasted with vigorous employment growth in the United States.

And in the 1990s, Europe lagged behind America in the adoption of new technology. For example, in 1997 fewer than 15 percent of French homes contained personal computers and fewer than 1 percent were connected to the Internet.

But that was then.

Since 2000, employment has actually grown a bit faster in Europe than in the United States - and since Europe has a lower rate of population growth, this has translated into a substantial rise in the percentage of working-age Europeans with jobs, even as America’s employment-population ratio has declined.

In particular, in the prime working years, from 25 to 54, the big gap between European and U.S. employment rates that existed a decade ago has been largely eliminated. If you think Europe is a place where lots of able-bodied adults just sit at home collecting welfare checks, think again.
Meanwhile, Europe’s Internet lag is a thing of the past. The dial-up Internet of the 1990s was dominated by the United States. But as dial-up has given way to broadband, Europe has more than kept up. The number of broadband connections per 100 people in the 15 countries that were members of the European Union before it was enlarged in 2004, is slightly higher than in the U.S. - and Europe’s connections are both substantially faster and substantially cheaper than ours.

I don’t want to exaggerate the good news. Europe continues to have many economic problems. But who doesn’t? The fact is that Europe’s economy looks a lot better now - both in absolute terms and compared with our economy - than it did a decade ago.

What’s behind Europe’s comeback? It’s a complicated story, probably involving a combination of deregulation (which has expanded job opportunities) and smart regulation. One of the keys to Europe’s broadband success is that unlike U.S. regulators, many European governments have promoted competition, preventing phone and cable companies from monopolizing broadband access.

What European countries definitely haven’t done is dismantle their strong social safety nets. Universal health care is a given. So are a variety of programs that support families in trouble, helping protect Europeans from the extreme poverty all too common in this country. All of this costs money - even though European countries spend far less on health care than we do - and European taxes are very high by U.S. standards.

In short, Europe continues to be a big-government sort of place. And that’s why it’s important to get the real story of the European economy out there.

According to the anti-government ideology that dominates much U.S. political discussion, low taxes and a weak social safety net are essential to prosperity. Try to make the lives of Americans even slightly more secure, we’re told, and the economy will shrivel up - the same way it supposedly has in Europe.

But the next time a politician tries to scare you with the European bogeyman, bear this in mind: Europe’s economy is actually doing O.K. these days, despite a level of taxing and spending beyond the wildest ambitions of American progressives.

Paul Krugman is Professor of Economics at Princeton University and a regular New York Times columnist. His most recent book is The Conscience of a Liberal.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

Reading Bill Kristol's Mind

2008-01-12T20:46:00.000-05:00

Marty Kaplan has a great article that pretends to be what Bill Kristol is thinking as he begins his tenure as a columnist for the formerly great New York Times. ( I did tell ya'll that this Kentuckian cancelled his online and weekend subscriptions in protest, right?) Read it. It's a great laugh. Then cancel your reading of the Times and email them about it. Then email Paul Krugman and suggest he switch to the Boston Globe or something.

Oh, and while your at it, write the Gannett-crap Courier-Journal ( a fine paper when owned by the Binghams) and demand they stop putting 5 rightwing columnists in their op-ed pages for every one liberal! Sheesh!

Newt's Hillary Obsession

2008-01-12T20:03:00.000-05:00

Another reason not to support Hillary Clinton for Democratic presidential nominee: Newt Gingrich worships her. (Okay, he also hates her. It's not healthy.) I don't know if this is one more example of the Rightwing's desire that Sen. Clinton become the nominee because they believe they can beat her--that she'll unify the GOP against her through "Hillary Hatred" when none of their candidates can unify them. It could be just that. Another possibility is that Gingrich has realized, as I and other progressives have said for years, that Clintonian politics isn't that far removed from the Right on the issues they care the most about: keeping economic justice from the poor and keeping the rich from paying fair taxes and an aggressive, militaristic foreign policy. It may be both. One thing it's not--a reason to vote for Clinton. Don't we all need a break from a politics dominated by the Clinton and Gingrich crowds?

Mitch McConnell: Godfather of Green?

2008-01-11T21:46:00.000-05:00

Tip of the Hat to Bluegrass Roots for this one. It seems Sen. Mitch "Obstructionist-in-Chief" McConnell(R-KY), otherwise known as the shame of the Kentucky Commonwealth, has released a new reelection campaign commercial claiming to be a major environmentalist, the "Godfather of Green." Uh-huh. And Tom Delay is a champion of ethics reform, Ron Paul is a big government socialist, and Dennis Kucinich is a warmonger. Umm, Mitch? How shall I put this, Bubba? Have you been sampling Kentucky's biggest extra-legal export crop??? Or do you think Kentucky voters have? (Okay, some probably have.) Mitch, Mitch, Mitch. Look, there's spin--and then there's LYING, and then there's just pure bulls**t!

The DSCC outlines the truth about "Green McConnell":

McConnell is Right: He is the Godfather of Green
McConnell Earns Name for Taking Oil Company Cash and Giving them Big Tax Breaks

Mitch McConnell, who earned a grade of 0% from the League of Conservation Voters for his record of voting against the environment in the last four years, launched a new television ad today touting himself as the “Godfather of Green.” McConnell’s ad is the latest in series that has cost the Kentucky Republican $700,000 since November as he tries to shore up sagging poll numbers and counter a series of missteps that have earned him widespread negative press coverage at home.

“We’ve finally found something we can agree with Mitch McConnell on,” DSCC spokesman Matthew Miller said. “He is the Godfather of Green when it comes to taking campaign cash from big oil companies and then voting to give them big tax breaks. Mitch McConnell has one of the worst environmental records in Congress, and even his own hometown paper has slammed him for obstructing legislation to support clean energy and make the oil companies pay their fair share. It’s no wonder that McConnell has been forced to run hundreds of thousands of dollars in ads to boost his sagging poll numbers ten months before Election Day.”

The Oil & Gas industry has contributed $540,911 to Mitch McConnell over his career. [Center for Responsive Politics, 12/22/07]
McConnell Helped Protect $5 Billion Big Oil Tax Windfall. Tax loopholes that saved the oil industry $5 billion were removed from the original Senate version of the GOP tax reconciliation bill in February 2006, but after heavy lobbying by the industry, Congressional negotiators reinserted them into the final bill. The $5 billion tax break for big-oil could have been used instead to partially offset the increase in middle class taxes. Mitch McConnell voted for the final tax bill with the big-oil tax breaks. [Republican Policy Committee, 2/7/06; Washington Post, 4/26/06; Joint Tax Committee, 5/9/06; Vote 118, 5/11/06]
Editorial: McConnell Brought GOP Senate and Bush White House Together On Behalf of Oil Companies. “In an oily speech on the floor after passage of a weakened energy bill, Kentucky's Mitch McConnell described what happened this way: ‘We recognized here in the Senate that the House bill couldn't pass the Senate and wouldn't be signed into law. So we fixed it. And now it will.’ He unctuously thanked colleagues for their hard work. He slathered on the praise, claiming, ‘I'm extremely pleased that we're about to show the American people we still have it in us to come together as a body and achieve consensus on an issue that affects all of us.’ Actually it's the Republican Senate he controls and the White House he cultivates that came together -- on behalf of the oil industry and the utility interests, by blocking the restoration of $13 billion in taxes on fabulous petroleum profits and shielding the power companies from a requirement to produce 15 percent of their electricity from renewable resources. …But the real winners were the lobbyists for big Republican campaign givers, who succeeded in blocking the restoration of billions in taxes on the big oil companies, which are squeezing American consumers for more than $100 billion per year in profits, thanks to huge price hikes at the pump. Had that tax provision survived, the proceeds would have financed clean energy development. Also falling before the pressure of lobbyists was a requirement that utilities produce 15 percent of their electricity by wind, solar and other renewable means by 2020. This was a huge victory for the operators of dirty coal-fired plants in the Midwest and South. This is what Mitch McConnell and George W. Bush did for Big Energy, and did to the rest of us. As long as Sen. McConnell can block action on future-friendly legislation by denying the Democrats 60-vote margins, this obstructionism will continue. …Sen. McConnell and President Bush are yesterday's heroes, not tomorrow's champions.” [Courier Journal, Editorial, 12/21/07]

Fellow Kentuckians! If, like me, you'd rather have a senator who is environmentally green than one who is "green" with oil money, then it is time to Ditch Mitch!

And, even though it now appears Kentucky Democrats will have a Senate primary race this year, I remain persuaded that the best way to Ditch Mitch is to contribute to, volunteer for, support and vote for Andrew Horne for U.S. Senate! Horne is the candidate who can defeat McConnell and give us a Kentucky senator with integrity again.

Barack Obama for U.S. President

2008-01-11T14:27:00.001-05:00

It is embarrassing to be endorsing one candidate for U.S. president so soon after I endorsed a rival. I still believe that Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) has the superior platform (of the viable candidates--bravely progressive Dennis Kucinich was never going to be the nominee, alas!) on all the issues about which I care most: ending the occupation of Iraq quickly (with all troops home and no permanent bases), moving toward a nuclear-weapon free world, a foreign policy based on human rights and international law, restoring the Constitution and rule of law, ending poverty, achieving universal healthcare, aggressively working to save the environment. But, after his distant 3rd place finish in New Hampshire, I simply do not see any way for Edwards to win the nomination. He's polling 3rd in South Carolina, where he was born and raised--and the only primary he won in '04! Nor does he seem to have enough money to purchase the high dollar advertising it will take to compete in the many states of "Tsunami Tuesday" on 05 Feb. where retail politics must give way to wholesale mass marketing. It seems to me, following NH, that Edwards and Obama are splitting the more-progressive-than-Clinton segment of the Democratic vote. Therefore, the only role that Edwards can now play is that of spoiler: siphoning off just enough votes from Obama to throw the nomination to Clinton, who, while an enormous improvement over anyone in the GOP field (which is setting the bar rather low, actually), is demonstrably the most conservative, even regressive, of the 3 remaining Democratic candidates. Therefore, in my view, Edwards should drop out of the race and work for Obama's victory.

Sen. Obama's platform is more progressive than Sen. Clinton's on most issues (healthcare is a major exception and I hope he can be pushed here) even though it is more centrist than I would like it. But there are other reasons why supporting him makes sense: Listening and reading remarks from rightwing pundits and GOP operatives since Iowa convinces me that the Right is terrified of Obama. They hate everything about Hillary Clinton (whom they are deluded into thinking is a "liberal," when she is centrist, triangulating, and a free trader and foreign policy hawk), but they don't fear her. They know that even if she becomes president they can use "Hillary hatred" to get contributions and rebuild the shattered coalition of the modern Rightwing-dominated Republican Party. The fragile Religious Right would come roaring back, too. When they thought she would lose NH, the Right was torn between whether to be gleeful at the downfall of their old nemesis or worried at the prospect of an Obama victory.

Why are they afraid of Obama? Because they are worried that he can actually succeed at his plan to widen the base of the Democratic Party, and create a new working political majority in this nation of Democrats and Greens, independents and moderate Republicans. Thus, an Obama election would not only be historic because he would be the first African-American president (Clinton rightly points out that the election of the first woman would be just as historic--and if affirmative action were at issue, then Condaleeza Rice would be the perfect presidential candidate!). It would not just change the way Americans see ourselves and the way the world sees Americans--as so many have rightly noted. But, IF Obama and his movement create a new working majority, then his election would be the most important presidential election since 1980. The GOP keeps trying to harken back to Reagan: Reagan shifted the political landscape and changed the terms of political conversation in this nation for decades. (For the worse, in my view, but change them he did!) If an Obama presidency would really succeed in that kind of tectonic plate shifting of the political landscape, then the Right wing would lose tremendous power and be in the wilderness for some time. The GOP could not rebuild without returning to the days when moderate Republicans (Eisenhower, Rockefeller, Sen. Mark Hatfield of Oregon, Minnesota Gov. Harold Stassen, etc.) ran the show.

Now, I am not sure that Obama really can do this. Iowa seemed to show such a shift, but New Hampshire called it into question. But if rightwingers like Tom Delay, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, and William Safire are REALLY afraid that Obama can create such a new working majority, then it behooves Democrats and other progressives to back him and help prove them right!

Although she says that NH helped her "find her voice" (a phrase that baffled pundits, but which is familiar in feminist literature), I remain persuaded that Sen. Clinton's vision is a return to the '90s--although, doubtless she hopes it to be a '90s without Ken Starr, without Newt Gingrich and the '94 GOP Revolution, etc. But, although the '90s were so much better than the Bush years, they simply weren't good enough. The changes we need now are deeper and the break with the past must be cleaner.

For those reasons, I now endorse Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for U.S. president. Hopefully, he can pick up some of the grit and moxy of John Edwards and some of the global vision of Bill Richardson(the latter would make a great Secretary of State!).

Meanwhile, we need to get the most progressive Congress elected, too. So, here in KY, help us Ditch Mitch, and support Andrew Horne for U.S. Senate.

Global Events Mark 6th Shameful Anniversary of Guantanamo Bay Prisons

2008-01-11T13:27:00.000-05:00

Today is a terrible birthday. 11 January 2002 was the birth of America's own torture gulag: the "detainee camps" for "unlawful enemy combatants" at the U.S. Marine Base at Guantanemo Bay, Cuba. Here the Bush administration has held people for years without charges, mostly without access to lawyers or contact with families or any human rights investigation except the International Red Cross. Bush has labelled these prisoners "detainees" and "enemy combatants" in an effort to circumvent the Geneva Conventions on the capture and treatment of prisoners of war. It has located this prison outside the U.S. proper in an attempt to deny the prisoners any recourse to the courts. When they have had legal representation it has been with so many restrictions that no fair defense could be given--defendants unable to see the evidence against them, nor confront their accusers and a presumption of guilt. Among the over 700 prisoners have been children and old people that even the government admits were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time--as well as people picked up by Afghani warlords and/or Pakistani police and accused and sold to the U.S. on what would be hearsay evidence in any normal court. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (during the time the GOP still controlled Congress) stripped detainees of the right of Habeas corpus that had been established for them in the heroic Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case (and for everyone else in the English speaking world since the time of the Magna Carta !). Credible evidence exists, though the government denies it, that detainees have been regularly tortured. It's time to shut this horror down, charge and try in regular courts the detainees or repatriate them. This must end!

Make no mistake: SOME of these detainees are probably what the Bushies claim: Al Qaeda and Taliban members who have been actively involved in terrorist actions or plots. They still deserve the same human rights protections as everyone else. And we should never accept ANY government's blanket claims about people without public trials, open evidence, fair legal representation, etc. And then, IF found guilty, punishment must also conform to U.S. (the 8th Amendment protection against "cruel and unusual punishment") and international human rights standards (protections against cruel, inhumane, and/or degrading treatment).

Stories on the protests worldwide are here. Good op-ed pieces are here, here, & here. There are excellent public statements today by Amnesty International , Code Pink, the American Civil Liberties Union, Peace Action, and Witness Against Torture. People around the world are urged to wear orange today in solidarity with the detainees.

McConnell's Year in Review

2008-01-10T20:47:00.000-05:00

From the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee:

Mitch McConnell: Year in Review

January: McConnell Called Himself Bush's "Strongest Supporter" On Iraq. In an interview discussing Iraq and the President's proposed troop escalation, McConnell described himself as "the strongest supporter of the president you could find in the Senate on this effort."

February: McConnell Blocked Senate Escalation Debate, Arguing Many GOPers Don't Want a Debate. Leading the fight to block a Senate debate on Iraq in February, McConnell said, "let me just say there are many members on my side who would argue that we shouldn't be having this debate this week at all." Headlines across the country accused the McConnell-led Senate Republicans of blocking the essential debate.

March: McConnell Holds Muti-Million Dollar Fundraiser With Bush, While Fighting his Battles in the Senate. On March 1, the Washington Times ran a headline that said, "McConnell fighting Bush's battles in Senate." The next day, President Bush traveled to Kentucky for a fundraiser with McConnell that raised $2.1 million for McConnell and the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

April: McConnell Voted Against War Funding Bill That Would have Set a New Course in Iraq. In April, McConnell voted against a $124 billion Fiscal Year 2007 Supplemental spending bill, which would have begun bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq by October 1, with a goal of having most troops home by March 31, 2008. In addition to the withdrawal, the bill provided billions of dollars for military equipment and health care for active duty military and returning veterans.

May: McConnell Endorsed Scandal-Plagued Gov. Ernie Fletcher, Saying He Had "Never Met a Finer Man." In May, McConnell endorsed Republican Ernie Fletcher for Governor of Kentucky, saying, "I have never met a finer man than our governor, Ernie Fletcher." In 2006, Fletcher was indicted on three misdemeanor charges for allegedly doling out state jobs to political supporters. The indictments came after Fletcher pleaded the Fifth Amendment and declined to answer questions before a grand jury. In August 2006, Fletcher admitted to wrongdoing in his administration as part of an agreement to drop the charges, but a grand jury report released later said that Fletcher oversaw a "widespread and coordinated plan" to avoid state hiring laws. Fletcher also pardoned every member of his administration that was involved with the scandal.

June: McConnell Held Up Essential Ethics Reform and 9/11 Commission Recommendations.On a single day in June, McConnell blocked congressional Democrats' attempts to move forward with a sweeping lobbying reform bill and a bill to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

July: Republican Senator Accuses McConnell of "Dereliction of Duty" for Actions on Immigration. In July, columnist Bob Novak wrote, "I asked one of the few conservative Republican senators who stuck with President Bush on immigration to assess how Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell handled the issue. Asking not to be quoted by name, he replied: ‘If this were a war, Sen. McConnell should be relieved of command for dereliction of duty.' Not only did the minority leader end up voting against an immigration bill that he said was better than the 2006 version he supported, he abandoned his post, staying off the floor during final stages of the debate."

August: McConnell Led the Fight Against Expanding Health Care to Over 3 Million Uninsured Children. In August McConnell voted against bipartisan legislation to expand children's health care to an additional 3.2 million kids across America. The day before, McConnell voted for and cosponsored a watered down bill that would have eliminated coverage for 3.2 million kids that were covered under the bipartisan proposal. The GOP alternative also changed reimbursement rules putting the coverage of hundreds of thousands of children in danger.

September: McConnell Pledged to "Support the President" in Opposition to Children's Health Bill. In September, along with voting against the initial version of the children's health bill, McConnell signaled he would vote "no" on the final version of the bill as well, saying, "I intend to support the president."

October: McConnell Knew That His Office Spread Erroneous Rumors Against Child, But He Still Claimed There Was No Involvement. In October, a McConnell aide admitted that he had sent an email to reporters highlighting charges made on conservative blogs accusing the family of a child who helped promote the children's health program of being undeserving of federal assistance. McConnell was aware that his staff was personally involved in smearing the family. But asked in an interview if his office had encouraged reporters to investigate the family of a young boy who had promoted the SCHIP program, McConnell repeatedly denied any involvement adding, "there was no involvement whatsoever….None."

November: McConnell's Handpicked Governor Loses Reelection Bid By 1

8-Points. In November, McConnell's handpicked Kentucky Gubernatorial candidate, Ernie Fletcher lost his bid for reelection. Not only had McConnell picked and encouraged Fletcher to run in 2003, but he also heavily campaign for him in his 2007 race. In the final days of the campaign, McConnell appeared with Fletcher and praised him as "extremely intelligent" and of "wonderful character," McConnell even recorded radio ads for Fletcher calling him "the best governor for Louisville in my lifetime…"

December: McConnell Tried to Justify Iraq Deaths by Saying That the Soldiers Weren't "Draftees" In December, the Grayson County News Gazette reported that McConnell said, "I won't tell you everything is great in Iraq; it is not. But we want to keep a steady flow of funds so that we don't disrupt the military. Unfortunately, most of our friends on the other isle are having a hard time admitting things are getting better; some days I almost think the critics of this war don't want us to win. Nobody is happy about losing lives but remember these are not draftees, these are full-time professional soldiers."

Aren't All These Great Reasons to DITCH MITCH IN '08? So, contribute and work for the campaign of Andrew Horne, today!

Frances Kissling on Why She's Still Not for Hillary

2008-01-10T20:16:00.000-05:00

Other progressive feminists like Medea Benjamin and the late Molly Ivins have said the same thing. But Kissling's words are powerful.

Published on Thursday, January 10, 2008 by Salon.com
Why I’m Still Not for Hillary Clinton

Women voters rallied en masse for her — but she has run as a stereotypical male and represents the same old cowardly Clintonian politics.
by Frances Kissling

In the wake of Hillary Clinton’s surprising win Tuesday and all the wrongheaded punditry leading up to it, there has been much discussion about why women voters rallied en masse for her in New Hampshire. Some believe she benefited from a powerful backlash against her many eager naysayers in the media. But whatever the reason for her campaign’s resurgence, I still don’t buy Clinton as the women’s candidate.

I’m a lifelong feminist activist. In this crucial election, I am supporting John Edwards, whose economic policies I think will best serve women. Barack Obama is a close second, with Hillary Clinton a distant third. At first, as a feminist, I felt strange, almost embarrassed not to support Clinton, but it wasn’t a tough decision. I did some soul searching, and in the end there were too many issues of principle on which she was willing to compromise. Her commitment to practicality over principle made it hard to be enthusiastic about her candidacy.

At the same time, watching Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire was a roller-coaster ride — there were moments when I just wanted to throw in the towel and support her, those flashes of humanity and passion, the confidence she expresses in her record, the reality that she probably is the good person her husband says she is. I imagine her frustration with people like me who sell her short and will not settle for the conventional wisdom of what a woman has to do to get elected and trust her. And then she would frustrate me with her almost absolute inability to understand that being a leader is much more than an exercise in competency; it is the ability to capture people’s imaginations and make them believe that there is indeed hope. The low point was her dismissal of Obama’s and Edwards’ visionary platforms as false hopes. Jung’s bad mother wagging her finger at the boys who dared to promise the American people more than they could deliver was too much.

I contrast the closing speeches from New Hampshire: Obama’s three words — “yes, we can” — and Clinton’s heartfelt claim of having found her voice, an unspoken acknowledgment that she had to learn and she learned it. One goes to bed with the feeling that the next six weeks will include a national opportunity for all but the far right to take apart questions of race, gender, class and political integrity. In a way, it is the first 21st century election. Will Obama force Clinton into the new millennium? Can she meet my expectations?

Then her record enters my consciousness: her votes on Iraq, the Patriot Act and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

I wonder if I am, as antifeminists are constantly taunting, one of those women who is jealous of other women? Am I harder on women than on men? After all, the first qualified woman who becomes president is not likely to be everything a feminist would like her to be. Am I just not practical enough to hold my nose and go with a qualified woman? Clinton is to be respected for her intelligence, knowledge of the issues and consistent work for social justice. There is no one best person to be president, and there is no doubt in my mind that, if elected, on most issues she will make good decisions, do the best that can be done in difficult circumstances and, as would Edwards and Obama, work to change some elements of the debacle of the Bush years.
But her approach to Iraq leads me to think she would more quickly and inappropriately use military power than other Democrats, and that is impossible to ignore.

The decision about whom to support is also based on more subtle issues of character, a sense of where the candidates will lead us and how much of a socially transformative vision for America they have. Being a feminist means not only supporting policies that improve women’s lives, but that lead to a new understanding of women’s and men’s nature, identity and role in the world. It means an unrelenting attention to the questions of exclusion and marginalization, and to leveling the playing field. Asking whether Clinton is that person is not just a fair question, it is the feminist question. In answering that question, the history of centrist Democrats and Clintonism must be confronted.

Now, I’ve never been a centrist Democrat and everything I have seen of Clintonism and the Democratic Leadership Council confirms that women are far down their priority lists. But there must be some small space in the political world in which women are important. It is also not to say that Clinton doesn’t care about women — of course she does, and she has supported and will support many policies that improve women’s health, employment and education. Perhaps one hears so little of that commitment on the campaign trail because it is assumed that the woman candidate does not have to talk about those issues. But whatever the reason, there is no evidence that Clinton’s feminist history currently influences her thinking about women, or that it is any further advanced than Obama’s and Edwards’ thinking.

The sad fact is that Clinton has felt compelled to run as a stereotypical male. In her own mind it is only a certain kind of man who is qualified to be president and she will be that man: tough on everything from war, flag burning, kids’ access to video games, illegal immigrants and Palestinians. She has missed the opportunity to talk about what it really means for women to be equal in this country. She has shown no interest in using her extensive international experience to push for more women in party leadership, state legislatures and even the Senate. A woman candidate who considered her gender a strength (as opposed to something she needed to overcome) would announce a series of measures specifically designed to ensure that women’s needs and rights were at the forefront of her agenda.

For example, she might begin by following the European example and create a Cabinet post on women. In addition to outlining her foreign policy in Foreign Affairs, she might write about women from a thoroughly modern perspective. As important as they are there is nothing new about talking about issues such as violence against women or research on women’s health issues or funding family planning at home and abroad. We need a candidate who advocates for the economic benefits that women all over Europe — and increasingly women in developing countries — have: better support for the retirement of women who do not work outside the home, paid family and medical leave, expansion of Social Security benefits to spouses (mostly women). And we need a feminist candidate for president who is not afraid of issues such as gay marriage, adoption and America’s changing attitudes toward women’s sexuality and all sexuality.

When John Edwards stepped up to the podium to concede victory to Barack Obama, he said, “The one thing that is clear here in Iowa is that the status quo lost and change won.” I do not want a feminism that is part of the status quo, and so I do not want the first woman president to be a Clintonian. Every time Hillary Clinton puts on the mantle of the Bill Clinton presidency and reminds us of how important it is to be practical and work with the other side to get things done, I think of every cowardly practical choice that Bill Clinton (or should I say the Clintons together) made. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” sellout of gays in the military; the abandonment of Lani Guinier; a failed healthcare reform package that would have sacrificed women’s reproductive health to the Catholic Church’s demands as moral arbiter; a welfare reform bill that actually hurt poor women and their families; and presidential approval of a permanent ban on Medicaid funds for poor women seeking abortions.

The women’s movement, along with other progressive movements, did little to challenge the Clinton administration to live up to its campaign promises. And now it seems that the longtime women’s movement is falling into the same trap over Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Just read the feckless and stale defense of Clinton’s record on the war posted on the National Organization for Women’s Web site to get a sense of how willing some in the feminist establishment are to defend any woman, regardless of her track record.

But some women aren’t buying it. We’d like to see a woman president, but more than anything we want to be able to say at the end of the first woman’s tenure in the highest political office that it really mattered. That the first woman president did things no man would have done, that feminist values were at the core of her decisions — and that the country was on the road to further transformation.

Frances Kissling is the president of Catholics for a Free Choice.
Copyright ©2008 Salon Media Group, Inc.

Another excellent article in this regard, by a young feminist Obama-supporting university student, specifically replies to Gloria Steinem's post-Iowa pitting of race versus gender. See it here.

Andrew Cuomo's "Shuck and Jive" Comment

2008-01-10T19:38:00.001-05:00

I've been ill, so first off let this Edwards supporter congratulate Sen. Clinton on her surprise win in New Hampshire. And, now, I think, reluctantly, that John Edwards should drop out. It looks now as if he is splitting the left-of-Clinton progressive vote with Obama. He can't win, but he can keep taking enough votes from Obama to be a spoiler and allow Clinton to win. C'mon, John. Yes, you're the most progressive of the big 3 candidates. But don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. You know Obama has a better chance of a clean break than Clinton, so drop out and endorse him. (BTW, all those waiting for Gore to endorse someone are deluded. Gore should follow Ted Kennedy's example and keep mum. Gore's priority is strong action on global warming--and he wants whomever is the next president to take that issue seriously. So, he cannot afford to alienate any potential winner.)

So, having just put up my Edwards' sign, I am taking it down and endorsing Barack Obama for president. And, since working for progressive policies and peace and justice is my priority, I am also looking for ways to push Sen. Clinton to be more progressive than her husband was or than she has shown in the Senate, should she become the nominee and the next president. It will be a close race and I hope the candidates don't damage each other--the party has to come back together in the fall to defeat whomever the GOP selects.

Today was a day of endorsements. Kerry's endorsement of Obama was unexpected and helpful. But Andrew Cuomo's endorsement of Clinton was problematic since he said that Obama was trying to "shuck and jive" voters. That's a very racially coded phrase and the Clintons are probably hoping it doesn't hurt more than help them. C'mon, folks! Let's make this race about who is best qualified to lead the country and who has the best platform. Let's not make it about whether it is more important to have the first African-American (male) president or the first (white) woman president. Both would be historic. In '04, before she dropped out, I was very proud to support the candidacy of Ambassador Carol Mosely-Braun, who is both black and female--and more progressive than either Obama or Clinton! We need to be working to heal the nation, not opening old wounds. There have been several times in the past when white women and African-American men started out working for the same goals--and then turned on each other (and African-American women were caught in the middle). Let's not do this in 2008, please!

Horne for Senate Kick-Off Party

2008-01-10T19:32:00.000-05:00

Please join us
at the Campaign Headquarters Kick-off Party
of
Andrew Horne for U.S. Senate

Tuesday, January 15th, 2008
5:30-7:30 p.m.

4121 Shelbyville Road
Louisville, KY 40206
(next to Big Lots)

(502) 891-8833

***
$100 Suggested Contribution

***

Please consider making your contribution online at
www.AndrewHorne.org

Paid for by Andrew Horne for U.S. Senate

I'm going to ask if those of us who cannot afford such a large donation are also invited. I'd be lucky to scrounge up $25! But I think this kickoff is important. Let's get started KY Dems on the process of helping Sen. Mitch McConnell "seek new opportunities in the private sector." In other words, let's pitch in for Andrew Horne and DITCH MITCH!

Clinton Allies May Dump Millions into a "Stop Obama" Group

2008-01-08T14:15:00.000-05:00

The Huffington Post has the story, reprinted here. I have endorsed John Edwards and sent what little money I can to his embattled campaign. But I much prefer Obama to Clinton. We do NOT need a dynasty or to return to the '90s! Ironically, the strategy outlined in the Huffington Post article (to not contest much in South Carolina or Nevada, and save money for Super Tuesday, while using 527 groups to go massively negative against Obama and depress voter turnout) is straight from the Karl Rove/George Bush handbook. It was actually outlined on MSNBC yesterday by Joe Scarborough, a former Republican Congressman and Bush speechwriter! This kind of cynicism and dirty tactics is what is destroying our democracy.

So, will a desperate Hillary Clinton use "Swiftboat" tactics to sink Obama--whose campaign is bringing in young voters, and expanding the Party by winning independents--in other words, is putting new health into the democratic process? I hope not. I hope that wide publication of this possibility will stop it in its tracks. If such a tactic succeeds and Clinton wins, she will do so at the expense of driving the young to the GOP or back to citizen apathy, of increasing cynicism and distrust of the process. And, it would almost certainly encourage Michael Bloomberg's delusional Third Party run which, unlike Ross Perot's '92 effort, could bring in not a Clinton, but another 4 years of a war-happy Republican.

Since Kentucky's primary is not until May, the only way we can help stop this is by (a) sending money to either Edwards or Obama's campaigns and (b) contacting all our progressive friends in the states voting on 05 Feb. (Primaries: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Massachussetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah. Caucuses: Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, New Mexico) and warning them of what may be coming.

McCain Wants to Stay in Iraq Forever!

2008-01-07T09:31:00.000-05:00

Okay, Dems. If John McCain is the GOP nominee, this is how we beat him! Play the following clips over repeatedly, in which McCain says that he's fine with us being in Iraq 100 years or even 1,000 years! Like Bush, he has explained our presence in Iraq with permanent bases like our presence in South Korea. He claims Americans are fine with having foreign bases everywhere--but the rest of the world isn't! Before the end of the Cold War, sure. But even in Europe, the complaint is that Americans never leave. Much of the world refers to us as an "empire of military bases" to enforce our free trade deals. They see this as a form of colonialism whether or not that is objectively true. And the Muslim world ESPECIALLY wants our bases gone--they are recruiting tools for extremist groups. Our building bases in Iraq makes Osama bin Laden's case for him. And, McCain to the contrary, the U.S. wants out of Iraq, NOW. So, here are the clips to keep playing over and over in the general election if McCain gets the GOP nomination.

David Frum is "Terrified."

2008-01-06T14:28:00.000-05:00

David Frum, former Bush speechwriter and Fellow of the very rightwing American Enterprise Institute, has told Deborah Solomon of the New York Times (yes, I cancelled my online and weekend subscriptions, but the story has been reprinted) that he is "terrified" that Republicans will lose in '08, lose in '10, and lose in '12--and that, it will take them half a dozen years to rethink what went wrong.

Well, from what I saw at the GOP debate in NH last night, he has reason to be terrified. What a collection of retreads with almost no fresh ideas between them!

But I worry that progressives and Dems will get cocky and lazy. The sea-change we are seeing is a result of a national revulsion and rejection of the road we've been down since 2001. But that will be temporary. Progressives have not yet made the case for a new political center. Demographic changes that currently favor Democrats will change in the 2010 census and subsequent redistricting. We cannot play the old game (so loved by both the Bushies and the Clintonians) of winning 51% and trying to govern a divided nation. Obama is right about that, even if I don't think he has done the work to create the new majority he talks about. And, frankly, the Democratic party is still far too controlled by the corporate Dems of the DLC (some of whom are real DINOS and others of whom just try for incremental reforms). Howard Dean's 50 state strategy is part of the solution--but it has to be accompanied by work in all fifty states to change the terms of debate. We have to build a movement and not just a party--and that will take ideas as well as footwork--and media reform, electoral reform, etc.

It's hard for Democrats and progressives to think in longterm solutions because conservatives and Republicans keep giving us such massive sets of problems (e.g., Fletcher's bankrupting the budget of KY's fair Commonwealth!) that when we get someone in office, even good folk, they spend all their time plugging holes and bailing water--who has time to build a better boat or better levees? But hard as it is, if we want to see real progress, instead of watching our children have to re-fight the same battles, we have to think and work longterm AT THE SAME TIME we are managing the crises we keep inheriting from the Right.

George McGovern Calls for Impeachment of Bush and Cheney

2008-01-06T13:36:00.000-05:00

Former Sen. George McGovern, the Democratic nominee who was beaten in the Nixon landslide in 1972 (and whose campaign offices were burgled in the Watergate robbery), never called for Nixon's impeachment. He was afraid that it would sound like personal revenge. But, now, he says the case for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney is so much clearer (and the crime so much greater), that he is openly calling for Congress to impeach them in order to save the Constitution. Go McGovern. Read the full story in the Washington Post here.

"Tyranny of Super-Delegates'

2008-01-06T00:01:00.000-05:00

The Nation's editor, Kristina van den Heuval, has a great editorial about the Democratic "super delegates." Even though she came in 3rd in Iowa, Sen. Clinton (D-NY0 has more delegates than either Obama or Edwards because of these unelected delegates--designed to protect DNC insiders like Hillary Rodham Clinton.

This is one part of many broken parts to our system that need reforming.

New Hampshire Debate Analysis

2008-01-05T23:22:00.000-05:00

I learned several things about the debates overall:

ABC really did the U.S. electorate a disservice in excluding Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) who has won several progressive, online polls and, despite having less chance at becoming president than I do in becoming a prima ballerina, keeps expanding the conversation and pushing boundaries in a progressive direction. We REALLY need media reform.
This format was better than most.
All the candidates in both parties looked tired from their exhausting schedules.
Any of the Dems is lightyears ahead of the GOP candidates. Paul, Huckabee, and Romney seem to have various degrees of awareness that the American public has turned against their party. The others seem to think they are still the majority party in the U.S., if not in Congress.

From watching the GOP debate I learned:

Except for Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), none of the GOP presidential candidates has any plans for us to leave Iraq EVER and none except Paul have a clue as to how to deal with terrorism. They have all drunk Bush's kool aid about being in a global war against "Islamofascism." Bulls**t.
None of the GOP candidates, including Ron Paul, will get us anything close to universal healthcare--and most are in a dream world, fantasizing that Europeans and Canadians, etc. want to trade their healthcare systems for ours. NOT the "reality based" Party.
None of these old, rich, white men have ANY clue about what working people go through. Only Ron Paul is aware of the looming recession and his libertarian response to it is a non-solution.
Mitt Romney(R-MA) is an absolute idiot and the others on that stage like him even less than they do Huckabee.
Fred Thompson(R-TN) is a corpse that doesn't realize he has already died.
John McCain(R-AZ) is re-fighting the Vietnam War.

Things I learned from watching the Democrats debate:

None of them were brave enough to rebuke ABC for excluding Kucinich and, thus, further damaging our democracy.
Obama's strength is not debate, but he made no mistakes and, therefore, should still be getting the Iowa bounce.
Clinton is desperate.
Bill Richardson (D-NM) is no longer running for president, but applying for a job in someone's cabinet, Veep or Sec. of State. He knocked hardest on Hillary Clinton's door.
Richardson also had the best one-liner of the night: "I've negotiated hostage releases that were conducted with more civility!"
John Edwards (D-NC) has obviously decided to help Obama knock Clinton out of the race before trying to take on Obama directly.
Barack Obama (D-IL) welcomed the help and responded by helping out Edwards.

Clearly, both Edwards and Obama think they will more easily beat the other with H.R. Clinton out of the way. And their tag-team may have done it. I also think the two were being careful not to strain things between themselves--preparing for one of them to ask the other to be Veep down the road? It sure looked like it.

Breaking News: Hillary Clinton Booed by NH Democrats!

2008-01-05T15:58:00.000-05:00

CNN has the story here! This is NOT good news for Clinton. It is huge good news for Obama and it may mean that Edwards can sway enough leaning-Clinton voters for a strong second place.

And, since rallying around a "stop Hillary" call is the only thing still uniting the fragmented GOP, a win by either Obama or Edwards will completely confuse them. They know how to go after Edwards, but they will lose. They have no idea how to even fight Obama: All their cheap tricks, rhyming his name with Osama, calling him a secret Muslim (and thus, by implications, a terrorist), pretending that his public school with a U.S. made curriculum that just happened to have a Muslim majority in Indonesia was a "madrassah," (with fundamentalist Islamic overtones), reminding people of his youthful drug use (which he had already admitted in his autobiography)--have completey failed to work. If Hillary Clinton can't beat Obama, you can bet that (take your pick) Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani or Thompson will simply be blown away. I used to think that John McCain was the only GOP candidate running who had a real chance--but that was before his recent remark to reporters that he didn't care if we stayed "a hundred years" in Iraq. All the Democratic nominee has to do on the way to November is play that over and over before a war-weary nation and McCain's dead meat. (But, then, listen up, Dems. Whomever we elect in November MUST bring ALL the troops home quick--or you won't get a second term. That's the national mood, and it will be much more intense by January '09!)

Clinton, Edwards, & Obama: What Must They Do In New Hampshire?

2008-01-05T13:13:00.000-05:00

1. Hillary Rodham Clinton's Challenge: The Clinton people absolutely have to win in New Hampshire. Not because they'll otherwise be out of money or staying power. They could conceivably battle for delegates through all the states and try to win the nomination in a slugfest at the Democratic National Convention in Denver--the way Ted Kennedy tried to do with Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1980. But if the Clintons do that, even if they win the nomination, they will have divided the Party and the nation so much that winning a general election will be difficult, if not impossible. (If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, expect the Bloomberg, Hagel, Nunn, et. al group of "moderates" in Oklahoma to try an independent run at the White House.) And, the "inevitability" narrative is completely toast if H.R. Clinton gets anything but first place in NH. If she wins, she can say that Iowa was an aberration and Obama a flash in the pan (and is already saying it), but even if she comes in a close 2nd, I think she's mortally wounded.

Clinton is still leading in NH, according to the polls, (but are any post-Iowa?) but NH Democrats are liberal--and liberal Democrats are angry with Clinton on Iraq & Iran (not just her initial vote, but her repeated votes for funding the war, her vote for Kyle-Liebermann which declared the Iranian National Guard a terrorist organization and practically declared war on Iran, etc.) and find her too much of a Democratic Leadership Council tool of big corporations. Can she overcome such a deficit and reach out to young voters and independents? Maybe, but it won't be easy.

I'll be charitable and give Hillary the benefit of the doubt: I don't think she really wants to be a G. W. Bush-type hawk in foreign policy and I know she doesn't want to restrict civil liberties at home. (She IS a convinced free trader, which will never sit well with me, but probably doesn't hurt her in New Hampshire which is a very upscale state.) I think she wants very much to be the first woman president--and to do good for everyone, but especially women and children, once in office. By all accounts, after all, she has been a good senator for the people of New York. But throughout most of her adult lifetime, the conventional wisdom has been, "women can't be president because they aren't tough enough to be Commander-in-Chief of the military." So, Hillary Rodham Clinton has set out to prove she is tough enough: As soon as she won her senate seat in '00, she actively sought to be put on the Armed Services Committee. She made friends with the Republican leaders on the ARC and she became a foreign policy wonk--so she could say that she had the Commander-in-Chief "street cred" when she ran for president.

Well, along comes 9/11 and the nation rallies behind G.W. B. as it seeks to strike back at al-Qaeda. Did she buy the phony case for invading Iraq? Well, if she did, even with national security briefings, she would hardly be the only one fooled. But it doesn't show great insight, either, because plenty of us in the nation and throughout the world knew that the case for invasion was weak--and if we saw through the illusion, why didn't she? I think she believed that she had to vote to authorize force because, no matter how weak the case, she was fooled into believing the war would be brief and popular--and she didn't want to run for president with a no vote on a popular war--getting hit with the "weak woman" label. And she has never admitted to her error because she doesn't want to get stuck with a John Kerry "flip-flopper" image. But even if I am right about this, it doesn't help her case with New Hampshire Democratic liberals--who will wonder if she will be an "iron maiden" in a crisis AS president so that she continues to show that women can be "tough enough." So, she has to count on NH independents, who are a little more hawkish--but who might question her independent spirit, her ability to be her own woman.

Clinton's job in NH is tough. She has the best machine there is and she is a professional. I do not count her out at all. She MAY be the real "comeback kid" of the Clinton household. And, unlike Iowa, New Hampshire is used to seeing women in high office--like fmr. Governor Jeanne Shaheen(D-NH) whose husband was part of the Clinton team and who is currently running for John Sununu(R-NH)'s senate seat. (Clinton should have Shaheen by her side in photo ops, not the aging Madeleine Albright who, along with a very grey Bill Clinton, keeps her campaign looking old, tired, and its theme of "back to the '90s" looking pathetic. Shaheen and Chelsea next to Clinton could help her cut back into Obama's corner on youth and younger women.) But the brief time between Iowa and NH (5 days) works against her.

2. John Edward's challenge: John Edwards really needed a win in Iowa. Even though he came in second the media are reluctant to give him coverage because they saw him come in 2nd in Iowa in '04 and then fall flat in NH and they think they have seen this movie before. So, they aren't concentrating on the fact that he was outspent about 6 to 1 by both Obama and Clinton and managed to squeak by Clinton for 2nd place. Further, Edwards' economic populism may not play as well in the more successful, upscale New Hampshire. But don't count out Edwards. If he can come in 2nd here and make Clinton take 3rd again, he at least has a clear shot at Obama--although neither Nevada nor South Carolina look like places friendlier to him than Obama and, if he doesn't have at least one first place finish before 05 Feb., it's all over.

The commercial in the previous post (below), if people have time to see it before Tuesday, could help. It's the same Edwards' economic populism, but less combative in tone and reaching out to independents and Republicans as Obama did in Iowa. And, with the dollar plummeting, the housing market plummeting, unemployment up in December, Wall Street panicked about possible recession, Edwards could subtly shift his economic message in a way that reminds New Hampshire's upscale citizens that their jobs and future aren't safe, either--and that Clintonism is not likely to be the answer.

Edwards could also emphasize other parts of his platform than his economic boilerpate: He's stronger than both Obama and Clinton on global warming and knows that nuclear is not the answer. The highly educated New Hampshire voters can judge between approaches to climate change--and he could remind them that, although Bill Clinton bragged in '92 that he had Al Gore on his team, he never let Gore work on environmental policy--and, thus, the '90s were wasted in getting a handle on the various dimensions of the ecological crisis. He is also the only one of the top 3 Dems to declare that he wants to work for a nuclear weapons-free world--instead of just trying to stop proliferation in nations we don't like! His anti-war message, while not that of Dennis Kucinich (who is unfairly being shut out of ABC's debate this weekend even though he polls better nationally than Biden, Dodd, and Richardson--all of whom had invitations before Biden and Dodd dropped out of the race!), is stronger than Clinton's and Obama's --and NH Dems want the Iraq war OVER, Gitmo closed, torture ended--YESTERDAY. And many NH independents feel the same way.

And none of these positions are new for Edwards (except the full pullout from Iraq in his first year), they just usually take a backseat to his economic populist message. So, if I had Elizabeth Edwards on speed dial (and I would call her before Joe Trippi, the campaign manager), I would urge putting THIS PART of the Edwards' message front and center in New Hampshire.

He is far enough behind in the polls, here (13%, although not post-Iowa), that a strong second place would be almost as good as a win--though it has to be a much closer 2nd place, after Iowa did not give him the win he expected. The clock is against him, but if he beats Hillary again, then he can make people compare and contrast him directly to Obama. An uphill battle, but not impossible. But, if Edwards gets 3rd place, here, then I think he is finished. (If he had won Iowa, he could have survived a close 3rd in NH, but I don't think so, now.0

3. Barack Obama's challenge: Barack Obama now has the pressure of the frontrunner--even though Clinton is still in the lead nationally and Obama has only won Iowa. On the one hand, he has the wind at his back and better conditions here than in Iowa.

Obama polls best among the highly educated, the young, independents, and liberals--all of which are in greater supply in New Hampshire than in Iowa. And the country wants bigger change than represented by Clinton. And, even though Edwards' platform is proposing bigger changes than Obama's-by every OBJECTIVE measure--Obama himself is fresh and new. He doesn't play the race card much(and Clinton plays the gender card all the time), but he doesn't have to: Just by being the son of a Kenyan father and a white Kansan mother, raised in Hawaii, Indonesia, and Chicago, Obama presents a fresh new face to U.S. politics. With the GOP still shouting "be afraid of outsiders, be VERY afraid, " Obama appeals to the side of Americans that is tired of that and wants to be the kind of America where one doesn't have to be a rich, white man to be president. (And, let's face it: No matter how progressive John Edwards' policies are--or even Dennis Kucinich's policies--neither can hide the fact that they are white and male, just like every other president this nation has known.)

Liberals, especially, want to live in an America that can have a Barack Obama as president--I know, I'm one of them. Obama and I are nearly the same age (I'm a few months younger) and I didn't grow up in Hawaii, Indonesia, or Chicago--but in Virginia and central/northern Florida. I remember "whites only" signs on facilities when I was small--though the struggle to end segregation was in full swing. I remember politicians being rewarded--not punished--when they made racist remarks. I remember (I was 6) the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. My parents were bit players in the civil rights revolution and I get my progressive values from them. So, even though I have endorsed Edwards for his platform, I broke down and wept Thursday night, seeing Iowa Democrats and independents vote for Barack Obama.

And the young gravitate toward Obama because his story is more like theirs. I came home from school bragging to my parents about having Black or Latino or Filipino (this was Florida!) teachers and friends. Heck, during the disco era, I even dated Black, Latino, and Filipino girls. But MY kids never mention the race/ethnicity of their teachers or friends. It doesn't come up in conversation. Most of my kids' friends have parents who have been divorced (like Obama's) and many are from mixed races and/or mixed religious backgrounds (again, like Obama's). Whereas my parents and my sibs and I stood out in the South for being willing to break down old barriers, my kids don't remember those barriers--except when I tell them about the "old days." The young gravitate toward Obama because, to them, he doesn't seem strange or alien to American identity (as Fox Noise and the Right keep trying to paint him: "secret Muslim," not like us, ooo, scary!), but like people they know--or like them. So, if Obama can keep mobilizing the youth not just to show up and rally, but to VOTE, then he will win not only New Hampshire, but the nomination and the presidency--even if his actual policies are more centrist than John Edwards (and, on healthcare, not even as progressive and Clinton). Because he EMBODIES the message of change that he articulates and that this nation is radically hungry to embrace. (Even conservatives like Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan feel it, so imagine how powerful it is to those of us who don't drag our knuckles on the ground or breathe through our mouths! )

And then there's Obama's oratory. It's in a different key from the great African-American civil rights preachers, but it's clearly in the same tradition and with great power. Obama is only a fair debater: Edwards is better. He is better at one-on-one dialogue, but both Edwards and Clinton are excellent in that format. He is NOT good at the sound bite, where Hillary excels. But give him time to speak, and he gives some of the greatest political oratory in a generation or more. It would move people at any time and place, but after eight LOONG YEARS of a president who can barely complete a sentence, it blows you away. A president must be more than a good speaker, but she or he must be AT LEAST a good communicator. It is often a president's job to comfort or rally a nation. She or he must be able to use what Teddy Roosevelt called "the bully pulpit" of the presidency to inspire, to rebuke, to brace up, to comfort. This nation has missed that for a long time--so long that when Barack preaches his politics of hope, he scratches itches many of us didn't even know we had.

So, with all that, it is not surprising that I think Obama will win on Tuesday while Edwards and Clinton battle for 2nd place again. BUT, Obama also HAS to win. Losing here will make the Clinton claim that Iowa was a fluke seem true. The stakes are high for all three. I hope they have plenty of Tums, handy for the next few days!

Edwards' New Hampshire Commercial

2008-01-04T16:15:00.000-05:00

John Edwards released the following commercial in New Hampshire this morning. It's his same economic populist message, but in a less combative tone and appealing not just to Democrats but to independents and Republicans, too. In other words, it's the John Edwards' message, wrapped in a style closer to Barack Obama. Apparently Edwards has learned from his loss to Obama last night. Will it be enough to win New Hampshire on Tuesday? Only time will tell, but you have to admire the way Edwards learns and keeps going!

P.S. Bill Clinton is telling folks that NH can make Hillary "the comeback kid" as it did for him in '92. This is revisionist history: Clinton and all other Dems. skipped Iowa in '92 because Iowa's favorite son, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) was running there. Harkin won, but ONLY Iowa. Bill Clinton lost to Paul Tsongas in NH in '92! He didn't start winning for several primaries--something that this year's frontloaded schedule will make difficult as a model for Hillary to follow. If H.R. Clinton comes in 2nd in NH after coming in 3rd in Iowa, she will have a VERY hard time being "the comeback kid."

Clinton Campaign Stung By 3rd Place Finish in Iowa

2008-01-04T15:19:00.000-05:00

The above headline says it all. So much for the triumph of money, political dynasties, and "inevitability." I don't regret endorsing John Edwards and will continue to do so--he's not done, yet. But the Obama win was impressive. Last night gave several reasons to cheer:

The turnout: As Howard Dean said last night on MSNBC, last night was GREAT for Democrats. Twice the number of people caucused for Democrats as for Republicans last night. I saw an energized, vital Democratic Party that was moving to the future with confidence. I haven't seen that in a presidential election since 1980. There was no sign of Democratic desperation last night. It was the GOP which looked tired, confused, and desperate.
The Young People: The Desmoines Register's editorial board may be idiotic for endorsing Clinton (because she's "business friendly"), but their statisticians know their stuff. They predicted Obama by 7 points and were right. And they said that 1st time caucus goers and young people would flood in for Obama, and even though every campaign which has depended on young folks before has collapsed, amazingly this one didn't. That says much for the increasing health of our democracy. Wow. Being a community organizer pays off.
Two-thirds of Democrats in Iowa said "no" to DLC/Clintonism with a feminine face. They said that, however much better the Clinton years were than this first decade of the 21st C. (the G.W. Bush era), and they were MUCH better, a return to the '90s was not good enough. The changes and new direction our nation and world needs are bigger than anything promised by Hillary Rodham Clinton--and two thirds of Iowa Democrats (and independents and Republicans who crossed over and caucused with the Dems) agreed.
Iowa is 97.3% white. The argument that the U.S. is not ready to vote for anyone of African descent is dead. I wish Shirley Chisholm had lived to see today and I am glad Jesse Jackson has seen it. If whites will vote for Obama in the South, too, then America will have come so much further from the Jim Crow days of my early childhood that I may faint for joy--whatever my disagreements with Obama on particular issues.
The "big money always wins" rule was rejected in both parties. It was rejected more decisively in the GOP in which Willard "Mitt" Romney was beaten BADLY by a nearly-broke campaign by a Baptist-preacher-turned Arkansas governor who, 3 months ago, almost no one took seriously--and many hadn't even known was running. Since Obama spent a lot of money (not as much as H.R. Clinton, but far more than John Edwards), the rejection of money was not quite as clear among Democrats as an Edwards victory would have shown--but Clinton's 3rd place finish still was a big money rebuke. And Obama hardly won by money alone. If this continues, our democracy will gain by returning the franchise to ordinary people. We might yet succeed in getting public financing and opening up public office to those who are neither wealthy nor sold out to wealthy special interests. We are not there, yet. But last night was a victory over cynicism.
Biden's withdrawal means that he now has plenty of time to focus on his reelection and the GOP can count out any chance of picking up a Senate seat in Delaware.
Dodd's withdrawal means that he can concentrate on stopping the McConnell-led GOP in the Senate and the weak-kneed Harry Reid Dems from collaborating in shredding the Constitution. I hope Dodd challenges Reid for Senate Majority Leader. Or, maybe a President Obama (or Edwards, I'm not done hoping and working here, yet!) will appoint him as Ambassador to the UN.

Reasons for Concern:

There are many reasons to like Mike Huckabee (R-AR) more than most of the knuckledraggers that the GOP is running for Pres. this year: On many domestic issues, especially poverty and taxation, he sounds very different than the mean-spirited troglodytes who love the super wealthy. But Huckabee stil has many negatives for progressives:

His campaign in Iowa basically said, "Vote for me because I am a conservative, evangelical Christian--and we should be running the place." Huckabee has ties to some very theocratic folks and he is no champion of church-state separation--and regularly demonizes Muslims, atheists, etc. All those of us committed to a pluralistic commonwealth where church-state separation and religious liberty and liberty of conscience are cherished need to work to defeat a Huckabee presidency.
I do NOT agree that Huckabee's victory in Iowa shows that "the Religious Right is as strong as ever." Most of the RR leaders endorsed other GOP candidates. Whether they now coalesce around Huckabee remains to be seen: they don't like him on several issues.
Huckabee is pro death penalty (damning Romney, who is also pro-dp, for not executing anyone while governor of Mass.--although Huckabee knows Mass. has no dp!), pro-torture, pro-Gitmo gulag, pro-continuing the Iraq occupation, etc.
Huckabee is at least as ignorant of world affairs and as incurious about them as G.W. Bush was in 2000. Do we really want a repeat?
Huckabee wants to outlaw ALL abortions, hints of prison for doctors who perform them.
Huckabee wants to continue discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Fortunately, Huckabee will not do well in NH where the battle will be between McCain and Romney.

There are strong reasons for progressives to rally around whomever the Democratic nominee is--although I am encouraged that last night showed that we might nominate a more progressive standard bearer than Hillary Rodham Clinton. On balance, though the Iowa results were not exactly what an Edwards supporter would wish, last night was a good way to begin 2008.

This will be the most important U.S. presidential election in my lifetime--and for the world, not just for the U.S. The congressional and senate races will also be important--as we say to ourselves and to the world: What kind of nation, what kind of society, do we want to become? Iowa gave us its answer. On Tuesday, we find out what the granite state of New Hampshire says. Excitement is in the air.

John Edwards for President

2008-01-03T06:41:00.000-05:00

I'm so glad the Iowa Caucuses are finally here! After a campaign season that seems have started in '06 (if not in '04!), more "debates" than I can count, commercials, etc., finally, someone somewhere will VOTE! Of course the New Hampshire primary (next Tues.) is a better test of who the nominees will be in both parties (and if someone wins both Iowa and NH, they will be very hard to beat!), but the last week has finally decided me: I am endorsing fmr. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) for president.

This has not been an easy decision. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) best represents my values (and I volunteered for his campaign in'04), but I have never kidded myself into believing that he had a chance to win. (That was destroyed in'04 when he announced that he would break up the media monopolies. Hooray! But the media went after Kucinich ever since.) I was not very impressed with Edwards in '04--and less so after he became John Kerry's running mate. Further, I was hugely impressed with Barack Obama's 2004 keynote address at the Democratic National Convention and said to my wife, "That's the future of the Party. That man will probably be our first African-American president." I still think that is true--whether this year or not.

What changed to make me order my Edwards yard sign? It began in early 2005, when the former NC Senator admitted that his vote in '02 to authorize the war in Iraq was a mistake and to apologize for doing it--something neither Sen. Hillary Clinton(D-NY), Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), nor even Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) has yet done. Then watching Edwards make ending poverty his primary domestic issue, and choosing to announce his candidacy in the ruins of New Orleans was a huge boost. I have watched his campaign craft a platform that was more progressive than any other candidate than Kucinich--and watched him work to a virtual tie with the "frontrunners" Clinton (who was practically coronated by the media even before she announced her candidacy!) and Obama. I am a progressive populist in orientation--and Edwards sounds to me like Democrats used to sound when they stood for economic justice!

I was impressed with the way he tackled global warming (I keep expecting Al Gore to endorse him), human rights, and international law. When Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, I was very impressed when other candidates mouthed sympathy or condemnation, but Edwards managed to get Pres. Musharraf on the phone and urge continued democratization (even if a short delay in elections from 8 Jan was necessary) and international investigation of Bhutto's death. That's now happening: The U.K.'s Scotland Yard will assist in investigating the Bhutto assassination and the elections will be held 18 February. The ability to act decisively, but calmly, without overreacting in a crisis is a major quality of leadership. Along with Sen. Chris Dodd, Edwards had also worked to keep the U.S. from attacking Iran.

My decision was finalized yesterday when I read that Edwards' planned to remove, not just "combat troops," but ALL U.S. forces from Iraq (and no permanent bases) as quickly as possible--with all of them home within a year of his taking the oath of office. That is quite a break with the "withdraw most" plans of Clinton and Obama (and Biden). It was a position previously only articulated by Kucinich, Gravel, and Richardson. Edwards is the first candidate to take this position--one that most citizens support--who actually has a chance of winning the nomination and the election. That sealed the deal for me. I am sending a small monetary contribution in the mail (too late for Iowa, maybe it'll help for NH) and ordering my yard sign, buttons, etc.

Even if Edwards fails to win the nomination, his candidacy can do more than other progressives such as Kucinich and Richardson, who have poll numbers in the single digits, to affect the platform and push the eventual nominee to a more progressive, peace and justice orientation. But I will now work my butt off to help him win the nomination and the White House. I am tired of DLC "corporate Democrats" who run from the New Deal and the Great Society. It's time for a Democrat in the White House who is on the side of the poor, of Labor, of the environment, of the sick, of the rule of law, human rights, peacemaking--and who will fight the vested interests on behalf of these convictions.

(If Edwards wins, it could have the added bonus of causing Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, Bill Kristol, and, especially Bill O'Reilly to all turn very interesting colors--and have apopleptic fits on the air!)

P.S. Truth-telling gonzo filmmaker Michael Moore hasn't yet made an endorsement, but in this article about the top 3 candidates, he shows some of the same reasoning that led me to endorse Edwards. I hesitate to mention it, since I am still sore at him for campaigning in Florida in '00 when he knew it might throw the election to Bush, but Ralph Nader, whose values are right even if his judgment is sometimes skewed, is now endorsing Edwards.

Update: Journalist Norman Solomon, who, like Nader and Moore, is part of the small percentage of the U.S. population that is regularly more liberal than I am on most issues has now endorsed John Edwards, saying that Kucinich's call for his Iowa supporters to choose Obama as their second choice in the caucuses (if Kucinich should get less than "viable" turnout in particular precincts) made no sense and removed the reasons that remained to vote for Kucinich in the primary season. Solomon also called Edwards the "most improved candidate" (from a progressive standpoint) of 2007, a sentiment with which I completely agree, although I think those improvements began on 03 Nov. 2004 as Edwards realized that both he and John Kerry lost by listening more to the professional campaign handlers than listening to his real, progressive, populist values.

Presidential Candidates & the International Criminal Court

2008-01-02T17:22:00.000-05:00

It doesn't get any U.S. news coverage or candidate debate time, but the position of U.S. presidential candidates on whether or not the U.S. should join the International Criminal Court in the Hague (which tries war crimes and human rights abuses when the home nation is unable or unwilling to do so) is one of the most revealing insights into the candidate's entire approach to international law and human rights, says a persuasive article in today's San Francisco Chronicle.

The ICC didn't quite exist when the Supreme Court suspended U.S. democracy and installed G.W. Bush in the White House in 2000. The U.S. had been pushing for something like this ever since the Nuremberg Trials after WWII and the Treaty of Rome which authorized the Court was finished in the last year of Clinton's presidency, but Clinton was "distracted" with the Palestenian peace process and hadn't decided whether or not to send it to the U.S. Senate for ratification--especially since Republicans on the Senate had just blocked his signing of the International Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. During Bush's first year of office, enough nations ratified the Treaty of Rome for the ICC to come into existence, but Bush, who had just finished "unsigning" the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change took the attitude that the ICC was an encroachment on U.S. sovereignty and, after 9/11, not only refused to allow the U.S. to join, but tried to get immunity from prosecution for all U.S. soldiers--our first clue alerting us to the torture and human rights abuses the Bush regime planned. The Bush disdain for the ICC was part of a general disdain of the UN, the Geneva Conventions, and the institutions and processes of international law--despite the fact that both Democrats and Republicans from the U.S. had led in the creation and maturation of these institutions and laws since WWI, and especially since WWII.

Most of the GOP presidential candidates (with the exception of John McCain, torture survivor and former POW), take the Bush line. The Democratic candidates generally favor the ICC, but both Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), and Sen. Barack Obama(D-IL) (perhaps trying for independent voters in the general election) have been cautious--still talking about checking with U.S. military leaders and examining the record of the ICC first. (But if our soldiers follow U.S. and international law, they are not at risk of ICC prosecution. That only happens if (a) we encourage acting outside established rules of war and (b) refuse to prosecute such soldiers ourselves.)

Here are quotes from some of the candidates:

Excerpts from presidential candidates’ statements about the International Criminal Court:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton: “Consistent with my overall policy of reintroducing the United States to the world, I will as president evaluate the record of the court, and reassess how we can best engage with this institution and hold the worst abusers of human rights to account.”

Sen. Barack Obama: “The United States has more troops deployed overseas than any other nation. … Maximum protection for our servicemen and women should come with that increased exposure. Therefore, I will consult thoroughly with our military commanders and also examine the track record of the court before reaching a decision on whether the U.S. should become a state party.”

Former Sen. John Edwards: “When America doesn’t engage in these international institutions, when we show disrespect for international agreements, it makes it extraordinarily difficult when we need the world community to rally around us to get them there. We should be the natural leader in all of these areas, and, certainly, we should be a member of the International Criminal Court.”

Sen. John McCain: “I want us in the ICC, but I’m not satisfied that there are enough safeguards.”

Rep. Dennis Kucinich: “Only the ICC presents a workable framework for the functioning of an international justice system which will affirm the basic human rights of all people.”

Gov. Bill Richardson: “The U.S. should join the International Criminal Court as a full-fledged member. We have nothing to fear.”

Sen. Chris Dodd: “Let’s make good on the vision of (Nuremberg prosecutors) Robert Jackson, Whitney Harris, and my father (former Sen. Thomas Dodd) and lend American support to a strong, stable, permanent international criminal court to help end genocide once and for all.”

Rep. Ron Paul: “The United Nations and the ICC are inherently incompatible with national sovereignty.”

From my perspective, this means that Kucinich, Edwards, Dodd, and Richardson are better candidates for moving the U.S. back toward leadership in peacemaking, protection of international human rights, and support for international law. (These are also the candidates which have pledged to remove ALL U.S. troops from Iraq, not just "combat troops.") These are the candidates the world can trust--the candidates who will stop our horrible moves toward imperialist rogue nation status and return us to the world community. I hope Iowa is paying attention to this tomorrow night and New Hamshire on Tuesday.

Year in Review

2008-01-01T17:39:00.001-05:00

Some things are just too funny not to post!

Peace Activists Occupy Huckabee's Iowa Office!

2008-01-01T16:48:00.000-05:00

This is the way activists should start the New Year! And keep going all year long! (They should target Democrats, too--especially Hillary the Hawk!) Thanks to Smirking Chimp for the heads up on this wonderful story.

The good folks at Voices for Creative Nonviolence and the Iowa Occupation Project asked former Baptist minister (and Islamophobe, homophobe, etc.) and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR), "Who Would Jesus Bomb?" (This question is completely appropriate since Huckabee has made his identity as a "Christian leader" central to his campaign.)

Model Letter to NY Times

2008-01-01T06:21:00.000-05:00

Happy New Year, Gentle Readers! Only 384 days to go until someone who is NOT George W. Bush takes the oath of office for U.S. president! Let's start this year off right, shall we? Yesterday, I complimented the New York Times (supposedly the "paper of record" for the USA, but moving increasingly to the Right editorially and making increasing journalistic errors in the last decade or so) for their editorial amounting to a political obituary for this worst of all U.S. presidencies.

But, caught up in New Year's celebrations (which for me, someone who dislikes crowds and is married to a minister, is really rather tame and boring--at least until the kids are asleep and my bride & I are behind closed doors! :-) ), I missed the announcement that the Times is hiring notorious rightwing hack, Bill Kristol of the Moonie-owned Washington Times as a columnist! Yes, the Bill Kristol who has argued that the NY Times ought to be prosecuted for reporting on illegal activities of the Bush admin.! One of the chief apologists for everything the unsigned editorial I praised yesterday was bemoaning! The Rush Limbaugh of print journalism. The rabid dog who makes even William Safire look sane. THAT Bill Kristol, who apparently will get to keep his job at the Washington Times, too!

So, although I subscribe to the out of town, weekend edition of the NY Times and it's online, electronic edition, I am making my first New Year's resolution to cancel those subscriptions. Join me. Here is a great model letter I found on the Huffington Post to circulate and send into the folks at the so-called "paper of record." We won't get the media reform we need to reclaim our democracy by continuing to support the abdication of serious journalism by the mainstream media. So, though I'll probably make other resolutions (including losing weight), I'm starting off this year by telling the NYT that Kristol goes or I go--they can't have us both. Join me, won't you?

NY Times "We Cannot Recognize Our Country"

2007-12-31T14:42:00.000-05:00

Since 9/11, I have lost much respect for the "paper of record" in the U.S. Yes, Judith Miller showed journalistic courage in refusing to rat out sources on the Scooter Libby fiasco--but first, she wrote all sorts of crap that helped fuel the fire for the war in Iraq. (She was basically a stenographer for the Bush propaganda, without ever checking to see if it was true. You know, without exercising proper journalistic skepticism and doing some digging?) Then there was the fake stories scandal related to a now-fired reporter. Then, since I have friends in Africa and Central Asia, I began finding all kinds of errors in their coverage of (and editorials on) international news. Which made me suspect their coverage on domestic news, too.

But as this editorial this morning on New Year's Eve shows, every once in awhile the Times gets it right! This is so right it's almost like they remembered to be journalists!

Wow! What's next? Supporting the movement to impeach Bush & Cheney? Nah, probably not. Still, I hope this editorial is repeated throughout the nation--starting with the Louisville Courier-Journal and the Lexington Herald-Times.

Why the 2008 Elections Are So Important

2007-12-30T08:19:00.000-05:00

Before I started this blog a few weeks ago, I posted on my other blog the reasons I believe the '08 presidential election is so important that ANY of the Democratic candidates are better than ANY of the GOP candidates running: the courts and the rule of law. But there are many reasons why I believe that all of the elections of '08, not just the presidency, will be the most important in a generation:

The Bush administration was the first time that "movement conservatives," who began taking over the Republican Party in the '70s and first won the presidency in '80, ran all 3 branches of government (at least, from Jan. '01 to Nov. '06). So, the public had its first full experience of the philosophy of modern conservatism in complete control. Polls show we didn't much like it--but the November elections are our chance to repudiate this political philosophy resoundingly--in a way that changes the landscape for a generation.
That's why the GOP is trying to make the public believe that what it disliked was just G.W. Bush--or just bad news from Iraq, or just Congressional gridlock. We have to make clear that we reject the very forces that brought Bush to power.
The climate crisis will not wait another 4 years, never mind another 8. This is our last chance to get laws that will actually have enough teeth in them to tackle the enormity of the problem.
We have a chance to tell corporate Democrats of the DLC and other DINOS (Democrats in Name Only) that going back to the Clinton years of the '90s, while an improvement, is not enough. We need bigger change than that. Indeed, for many of us progressives, the Clinton years were a huge disappointment--one that only looks good now because these last 7 years have been so atrocious.
I am a devout Christian--married to a minister. But I am no fan of the Religious Right. Back when Republican Sen. John McCain actually told the truth (2000), he rightly called them "agents of intolerance." For a variety of reasons, the Religious Right is currently divided and, at least, on the back foot. (Predictions of its demise are premature). Many younger evangelicals are rediscovering the evangelical left that I knew in the '70s--in which faith propelled one to work for racial and gender justice, to end poverty, to care for creation, to work for peace. Not to demonize immigrants, gays, persons of other religions, scientists, or atheists. Many of the leaders of the RR are aging or dying. The ones which remain are divided about the GOP candidates for president--or are sitting this one out. This election is a chance to break the electoral power of the RR--not in the name of militant atheism (although folks like Christopher Hitchens are a result of the RR), though we protect atheists and agnostics, of course. No, we reject the RR in the name of the Constitution, and of the ideal of America as a place where all faiths are respected--and the consciences of those who have no particular religious faith, too. Rejecting the RR means restoring tolerance, respect, reason, scientific integrity, and church-state separation.
This election will determine whether or not we can win back the respect of the community of nations or whether we will continue to become a rogue nation that is a bigger threat to peace and stability than anything Osama bin Laden can do. It will determine whether or not we honor treaties or continue to "unsign them." It will determine our attitude toward international law--and the institutions of international law--most of whom we helped to build in the first place.
This election may be our last chance for a generation or more to save the gains of the New Deal and try to restore the best of the Great Society: To return us to a mainly middle class society in which poverty and homelessness is rare, in which extremes of wealth and poverty are absent, in which progressive taxation ensures that all pull their weight and that much-needed public institutions and services have the funding needed. (We won't solve all this with one election, but it could determine the direction for a generation or more.)
How we treat minority populations, not just racial and ethnic minorities, but sexual minorities, gender identity minorities, religious minorities, and those with unpopular viewpoints will be greatly affected for good or ill by this election.
We blew the chance for universal healthcare in 1992-3. This may be our last chance to join every other industrialized nation and make healthcare a universal right, not a privilege of wealth.

The list could go on for pages. This is enough. It will require active citizenship. College students: If you are not registered to vote, change that immediately. Then get registration forms and register everyone you know, everyone in your dorm, sorority, fraternity, etc. Pass out voter registration forms at every ballgame, protest, concert and dormroom bull session.

Write letters to the editors of local papers. Volunteer for candidates' campaigns (start with Andrew Horne's) Pass out literature and buttons and T-shirts and yard signs and bumper stickers. Staff a phone bank. Contribute money. March against the war and against torture. Get involved with social change organizations.

Democracy is NOT A SPECTATOR SPORT. A sign I saw said, "Democracy is like sex--it works better when you participate." Well, maybe not. If democracy were really like sex, people would not need to be ENCOURAGED to participate! Democracy is hardly perfect--but it sure beats alternatives. We need it to work. We need your participation.

This is the year. Now is the time. We are the people we have been waiting for. In 2008, we take back our country.

Another Sign of Hope

2007-12-30T07:46:00.000-05:00

Navy JAG Lt. Commander Andrew Williams has resigned his military commission over the alleged use of torture by the U.S. and the alleged destruction of videotapes of said torture. Williams had already been outraged when Brigadeer Gen. Thomas Hartmann, the legal counsel for the detainees at the Gitmo Gulag, repeatedly refused to call the hypothetical waterboarding of an American pilot by the Iranian government "torture."

Some of my peacenik friends are too dismissive of all military personnel as having no consciences. Although I am a pacifist who became a conscientious objector in 1983 while serving in the U.S. Army, I have never shared the disdain with which SOME (far from all) peace folk hold the military. I come from a military family and know that disagreements over all use of violence does not equate with a blind acceptance of violence and totalitarian rule. Really, some liberals have got to wake up to the fact that many great peacemakers are former members of the military--including Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, the late Philip Berrigan, all the fine folks at Veterans for Peace, Vietnam Veterans Against War, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, Gold Star Families for Peace, etc. And some of our biggest warmongers and torture fans are civilians who deliberately avoided military service ("chickenhawks") like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, John Ashcroft, Scooter Libby, Condoleeza Rice, Saxby Chambliss, and, Kentucky's own Chief Chickenhawk, Mitch McConnell.

I am impressed with the many military personnel who have protested this war and the torture and other human rights violations it has engendered. They include Navy Lt. Commander Charles Swift who vigorously and successfully defended the rights of Osama bin Laden's driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan--all the way to the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. (Of course, then Congress attempted to undo that great work by passing the horrible Military Commissions Act of 2006.) Swift was passed over for promotion and forced out of the Navy. Others have paid even higher prices--while most of this nation's civilian population has yet to even write an angry letter to the editor of a local paper!

Public visible resignations of office, like public refusal or return of awards and honors, is a form of nonviolent protest and can be very effective. (Imagine where we would have been today, for instance, if then-Sec. of State Colin Powell, instead of rejecting only part of the speech he gave before the UN in '02 had simply refused to prostitute himself before what he had to know was a tissue of lies and half-truths. What if he had resigned in protest of the march to invade Iraq?) The resignation of high ranking military attorneys like Lt. Cmdr. Williams gives added pressure to the investigation of both the existence and destruction of the torture tapes. We owe folks like Lt. Cmdr. Williams not only our thanks for their military service, but also their service to our country in refusing to go along with the continued shredding of our Constitution and values. His resignation in protest is perfectly consistent with his oath to defend the Constitution from ALL enemies, both foreign and domestic.

I hope others join him. Indeed, I would like to see high level resignations of the CIA for this and of career members of the Justice Department. If I met Lt. Cmdr. Williams, I would shake his hand. Honor and integrity are in short supply in this age of fear mongering: When found it should be honored.

Vermont Activists Plan Attempt to Arrest Bush/Cheney

2007-12-30T07:16:00.000-05:00

Some bits of news are just so fun! O.K., this attempt by Constitution-loving activists in Brattleboro, VT has ZERO chance of working. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be tried all over the nation. Sometimes actions which do not work in the short-term result in longstanding changes for the better. The Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (a civil rights coalition) failed utterly in their attempt to seat a mixed race alternative slate of delegates at the 1964 Democratic National Convention. But the drama of racist injustice was aired on national TV, including the compelling testimony of former sharecropper-turned-activist Fannie Lou Hamer before the rules committee. The immediate result was a resounding defeat (and the exposure of the way even "liberal" politicians like LBJ and Hubert Humphrey cared more about political fallout to their careers than they did for justice--old story). But this changed forever the way that primaries and delegates were selected to either national political party--and was a major factor in getting the 1965 Voting Rights Act passed.

So, likewise, I do not think that the Brattleboro attempt to instruct their Town Council and police to arrest Bush & Cheney when next they visit and then to deport them to one of the European countries preparing to indict them on violations of international law before the International Criminal Court has any chance of actually resulting in said arrest and extradition. Not even if Brattleboro's hopes are realized that other liberal towns and cities, etc. across the nation try the same thing. I am even skeptical that such moves will finally force this Congress to hold impeachment hearings for these two villains--despite overwhelming evidence of their committing multiple "high crimes and misdemeanors." The Democratic leadership (Pelosi and Reid) is more afraid of political backlash than of shredding the Constitution, so they plan on just running out the clock on the Bush/Cheney admin., no matter how damage continues to be done to the rule of law, to human and civil rights, etc.

But maybe, just maybe, such actions multiplied across the nation could convince the mainstream media and Congress that the people really do care about the Constitution. Maybe Congress will reverse the abominable Military Commissions Act of 2006 (which suspended Habeas Corpus) this year. Maybe they will again filibuster in Feb. immunity for telecommunications firms that help the government illegally wiretap us. Maybe, just maybe, the next president and Congress will keep their word about restoring the Constitution, instead of wimping out like Pelosi and Reid have done. Who knows? Maybe the next president will even say to the next Attorney General, "Hey, just because Bush and Cheney have left office doesn't mean they are beyond the reach of the law. Investigate all those items that have been pending, appoint a special prosecutor, convene a grand jury, and let's see if we can't get some jail time for these Worse-Than-Watergate perps!"

Mind you, I am not holding my breath. But as I look to a new year, hope springs eternal--especially in the light of stubborn Vermonters who put the Constitution above "pragmatic realism." Way to go, Brattleboro. Whose for introducing a similar measure to the Louisville Metro Council?

Top 10 Iraq Myths of 2007

2007-12-29T14:26:00.000-05:00

That's the title of this excellent article by Juan Cole in "Informed Comment," the Middle East blog of the Global Americana Institute. I'll leave you to read the details, but I'll list the myths in brief;

10. The U.S. public no longer cares enough about Iraq for it to be a major issue in the '08 elections. Any candidate who thinks that is toast.

9. There have been steps toward political and religious reconciliation in Iraq in '07.

8. The U.S. troop surge stopped an ongoing civil war in Iraq.

7. Iran was supplying roadside bombs to a terror group in Iraq.

6. The U.S. overthrow of Saddam and occupation of Iraq has increased the freedoms for Iraqi women.

5. Progress has been made by the Iraqi government in meeting the "benchmarks" that Bushco set for the (long off, eventual) removal of U.S. troops from the occupation.

4. The Sunni Arab "Awakening Councils" on the U.S. payroll are reconciling with the Shi'ite dominated Iraq government and both are taking on al-Qaeda-in-Iraq together.

3. The Iraqi north is relatively quiet and is enjoying stability and economic growth.

2. Iraq has been "calm" in the fall of 2007 and the Iraqi public, despite grumbling, is not eager to see U.S. troops depart.

1. Reductions in Iraqi violence are directly attributable to the U.S. surge. (Also known as the myth of "Gen. Petraeus is a military genius!")

As one commenter on the article noted, however, the biggest myth remaining in parts of the U.S. public is the myth (deliberately fostered by Bushco and, now, his would-be successors in the GOP presidential race) that Iraq attacked us on 9/11. (Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi and Osama bin Laden himself is of the Saudi royal family. There have been NO, absolutely zero, plans to attack Saudi Arabia--or even to speak to it harshly about the way it foments Wahabi extremism.) No doubt there are still those who believe that Iraq had WMDs and was an immanent threat to the U.S., too. Sigh.

Campaign Quarter Ends 31 December

2007-12-29T12:54:00.000-05:00

Now is the time to give a donation to Andrew Horne for the U.S. Senate! Despite our strained finances (a major piece of furniture broke that we need to replace soon!), I plan to ask my wife/bookkeeper if we can't send $25. All of you do the same--or more if you aren't dealing with unexpected expenses. Also, that is the deadline for contributing to your favorite Democratic presidential candidate (among the possible winners, I'm still undecided between Obama and Edwards; I contribute to Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) in hopes that he can push the platform in a more progressive direction--perhaps getting the nominee to adopt truly universal, single-payer, not-for-profit healthcare (Medicare for everyone) or maybe getting the nominee to support his excellent Department of Peace idea). It's also the deadline for contributing to charities (I listed some of ours in an earlier post) and getting to deduct it on your taxes this April!

So donate, already--beginning with the Horne campaign. We will not Ditch Mitch "the Obstructor" McConnell, with all his millions, unless ordinary people donate to the Horne campaign. (Of course, if some wealthy progressives like the Bingham family, the Gheens family, the Paul Patton family, etc., want to contribute and fundraise for Andrew, I'm sure he'd appreciate that, too! But we can't wait for wealthy progressives--It's up to us, folks!

Why Progressive Patriots Are Angry

2007-12-29T06:45:00.000-05:00

David Michael Green, who teaches political science at Hofstra University, has written an article about why we progressives are so angry at what is being done in our names by our country. I could have written it myself. Ever since early 2002, I have felt such outrage--only to be asked why. Read Green's answer. As the Quakers say, "This Friend speaks my mind."

Bhutto's death and U.S. Presidential Candidates

2007-12-29T06:21:00.000-05:00

This morning's Washington Post has a great editorial about the undeniable fact that Benazir Bhutto's assassination, tragic in itself, presented the '08 presidential candidates with a test: Faced with a genuine crisis in foreign policy, could they cogently and clearly. The Post gives the highest mark to John Edwards (D-NC), saying he passed with flying colors: Managing to get Pres. Pervez Musharraf on on the phone Thursday (quite a feat for a one-term senator not well known on the global stage) and to deliver a strong message: continue on the path back to a democracy (unlike Bush, Edwards isn't stupid enough to think Pakistan currently has a democracy!) and allow international investigators to investigate Ms. Bhutto's death. (If they clear Musharraf's admin., they will have far more credibility than if Musharraf handles things "in house.")

The Post also gave high marks on this test to Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and John McCain (R-AZ). (They failed to mention that Clinton echoed Edwards' call for international investigators by the end of Friday--without mentioning that this idea wasn't original with her.) The post didn't mention "2nd tier" candidates Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Joe Biden (D-DE), both of whom have decades of foreign policy experience, both of whom have warned for years that Pakistan was farmore dangerous and unstable than Iran, and who gave great responses to the crisis.

The Post rightly flunks fmr. Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) who didn't know that Musharraf had lifted martial law 2 weeks ago and who then thought that we ought to guard our borders against a flood of Pakistani refugees. (AIEE--Help! More brown people with a strange religion are coming! OH, NO!!) Also, Huckabee thought that Afghanistan was on the Eastern border with Pakistan (no, Mike, that's India!) and not the Western border! Sheesh! I hope all Americans agree that 8 years with a president who is abysmally ignorant of world affairs (or even geography!!) is enough!

Giuliani and Romney merely saw the assassination as confirming their view that we aren't fighting terrorism in all its form, but Muslims and "jihadists." But the Post reserved its worst grade for Obama's attempt to link Bhutto's assassination with Hillary Clinton's vote to authorize the war/occupation of Iraq. It was a very weird response and, I have to say, has shaken some of my enthusiasm for Obama, though I still prefer him to Hillary. Maybe if he became John Edwards' VP, he would gain enough foreign policy experience for the White House--or maybe he has it now and just didn't realize that a crisis is NOT simply another opportunity for a low blow in a campaign--and this, from someone who wants a kinder, gentler politics, too!

Krugman to Progressives: To Arms!

2007-12-28T15:58:00.000-05:00

Too many blog updates for one day, I think. This one's the last. Slate has an excellent editorial by Princeton economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman called, "Progressives: To Arms!" It is worth reading: Urges Democrats to seek to be more than "anti-Bush," but to roll back the forces which brought Bush to power. It also had a nice distinction between liberals and progressives: one is about values and the other about actions. "If you think everyone should have universal healthcare, you are a liberal. If you are working to bring about universal healthcare, you are a progressive."

I like that. I also think progressives (in which camp, I pitch my tent) are more focused on racial and economic justice, equality of the sexes (and sexual orientation), environmental protection, and a foreign policy guided by a commitment to democracy, human rights, and international law. Liberals care about such matters, but are more focused on abortion rights, civil liberties construed in a very individualistic fashion (tolerance and license), and lifestyle issues. Progressives may or may not care about such matters, but their heart and soul goes into the fight for social justice for ordinary people, especially economic social justice. A Clintonian liberal can proclaim "welfare state government is over," but a Wellstone-type progressive celebrates and defends the gains of the New Deal and Great Society and wants to take them further!

Read the Krugman article--then roll up your sleeves for the struggle.

Hollywood Revisionism: Charlie Wilson's War

2007-12-28T15:37:00.000-05:00

AlterNet has an excellent review of Charlie Wilson's War which points out many of the big lies it promotes about the U.S. actions in Afghanistan in the '80s. Among the many sins of omission is any mention of the way the C.I.A. helped create the Taliban and the fighters which became al Qaeda. Thus, this movie fails to show how blowback from the CIA's actions in Afghanistan led to the attacks on 9/11. Without that link we fail to learn the lessons from American foreign policy disasters.

Bush to Veto Troop Funds?

2007-12-28T15:13:00.000-05:00

Every time I start to get the idea that I understand how W "thinks," he does something that's really odd, even for him. This one is just bizarre. After bullying the Democrats into giving him more billions for the Iraq war--without a timeline for withdrawal or any other strings--Bush is now threatening to veto the bill. Why? Because, despite the fact that foreign governments are usually immune to lawsuits in U.S. Courts, the Iraqi government is afraid of just that--and thinks an obscure provision of the budget will allow such lawsuits.

Now, don't get me wrong. I think this could be good news--but that's because I have urged Congress to refuse to fund the occupation--forcing a withdrawal. (If Bush vetoes funding with deadlines, keep giving him the same thing. Vetoes do not produce funds. If he runs out of money, he'll be forced to withdraw--and the military itself and the GOP party bosses will make him use what money is left to protect the troops during withdrawal. Grow some spines, Dems. Support the troops by forcing their return home.) But for Bush to veto a bill that seemed to give him everything he asked for is just---odd. W can't seem to take yes for an answer. Weird.

C-J Calls McConnell "The Obstructor."

2007-12-28T14:39:00.000-05:00

Did everyone notice that the Louisville Courier-Journal today called Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) "The Obstructor." They didn't mean it as a compliment. Since I have been referring to McConnell as "Obstructionist-in-Chief" almost since he was elected Senate Minority Leader, I feel some vindication that others share this view. The C-J's editorial lists only a few of the many matters that McConnell has stalled or blocked in the Senate--to the detriment of the national common good. It does a nice job of highlighting McConnell's hypocrisy--since when the GOP was in the majority, they threatened to take away the filibuster right of Senate minorities if the Dems used them to block some of Bush's more outrageous appointments. (Yes, this is how we ended up with Chief Justice Roberts on the Supreme Court!) From the "nuclear option" of removing the filibuster to a record year of obstructionism. That's our Mitch!

If this sickens you as much as me, then go to Andrew Horne's campaign and donate some money, and volunteer to help the campaign--our best chance in years to Ditch Mitch and elect a Senator that remembers what public service is all about.

2007: From MoveOn's P.O.V.

2007-12-28T13:35:00.000-05:00

Since I belong to MoveOn & participated in some of these events, I am happy to share this video and to suggest that if you like what you see, make an end-of-year contribution here. Other progressive organizations are closer to my heart, but MoveOn was the first such to really harness the power of the world wide web, making it an essential citizens' action group for a postmodern political era. If you aren't a member, join up. We could use you in the work in 2008.

My Favorite Books on Politics in 2007

2007-12-27T22:43:00.000-05:00

Considering the reading scores for public schools in Kentucky (and, despite their claims to the contrary, the home schooled aren't noticeably better on average), some might be surprised that a Kentucky-based blog on politics will promote reading, and, especially, the reading of books. Strange or not, it is true. Maybe it's the fact that I have an earned Ph.D. Chalk it up to academic elitism if you want to, but although I think all the new media have great opportunities (and some dangers, as with all media), and I promote their use in classes, business, etc., I still think that books (as well as newspapers and serious journals--as opposed to endless photo magazines of cars, celebrities, etc.) are important. Widespread readership of books, papers, and journals is vital to the health of a living democracy and the decline in readership is something we should note with some anxiety--not outright fear (there's enough promotion of that, these days), but enough internal discomfort to try and rectify the situation. (The poster boy for this is, of course, Pres. George W. Bush, who does not like to read; brags about not reading newspapers--preferring his aides to give him a digest of the news with a personal "spin;" who has very little curiosity about the world; and insists that all memos, reports, briefings, etc. fit on one page of talking points! Whatever criticisms one could make of Carter and Clinton, our last 2 Democratic presidents--and there are legitimate criticisms of both--at least they read voraciously and spent a great deal of time trying to understand the world and their jobs. A president need not be an intellectual, but at a minimum we should insist that our presidents always be intellectually curious and attempting to keep well-informed--including by regular reading of newspapers, journals, and BOOKS.)

Since my perspective and that promoted by this blog is "left of center" (in U.S. terms, which is still more conservative than much of the rest of the world), readers can expect that I will especially highlight books, papers, journals (and blogs, etc.) with center to left perspectives, because I want those to become well known. But I emphatically do NOT believe that one should only read from that perspective. There is far too much reading, speaking, and thinking only within "bubbles" or "zones of comfort" in this society already. One should always know the arguments and perspectives of one's adversaries--and even where they may be right on some matters. The world is far too complex to think only one's own party or view has all the answers. But let's start with my favorite political books in 2007--which will be center-left.

Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches, by John W. Dean (Viking, 2007). This work is all the more amazing because it is written by a former conservative Republican lawyer (who still calls himself a Goldwater conservative) who served as Nixon's White House Chief Counsel! Now a registered independent, Dean broke with the Republican party after watching it break the processes of government. This work will serve as a civics review for those who have forgotten (or never learned in high school) how the Framers designed the U.S. federal government to work--and it details the ways in which modern Republicanism (1968 forward, but especially beginning with the Reagan presidency in 1981) has warped and even broken each branch of the government and eroded the checks and balances that are essential to the system. So, especially when all 3 branches of government were in Republican control, the presidency and executive branch became far more powerful than the Framers intended, the Congress ceased all oversight and became a rubber stamp, and the judicial branch lost much of its independence, bowing to "Executive privilege." My only problem with this book is Dean's simplistic cure: As this year has shown, simply electing Democrats until balance is restored won't work. We need progressive Democrats and Independents with backbone, we need engaged and active citizens, a free and diverse media peforming vigorous watchdog responsibilities, and we need some electoral structural reforms that will give more power to the people, curb the power of money in politics, and help third parties give real options to voters without simply playing a "spoiler" role that allows the worst candidate to win. But if Dean's solution is simplistic, his analysis is vital.
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (Metropolitan Books, 2007) by Naomi Klein. The author is an award winning Canadian journalist who also has degrees in economics. Here she shows how the Right, following advice from the late Milton Friedman, have used the shock of disasters (wars, natural disasters, attacks, coups, etc.) to forcibly change economic structures: including radical privatization of public concerns and reaping enormous profits for big corporations at the expense of the victims of the tragedy. She wants us to see the pattern all over the world so that we will recognize it when the next disaster strikes and be able to resist successfully.
Truth and Consequences: Special Comments on the Bush Administration's War on American Values (Random House, 2007) by Keith Olbermann. This one is a little more light hearted. It is a collection of journalist Keith Olbermann's "special comments" since August 2006. I tell even conservatives to read or listen to Olbermann--because even if you disagree, you get to see brilliant writing and eloquent rhetoric delivered with oratorical power that is almost unknown anymore. That rhetorical power itself lifts the level of discourse above the currently low level to which it has sunk (across the spectrum) in the U.S. Stretch your vocabulary, get history lessons, and read a contemporary example of the political jeremiad--something nearly extinct before Olbermann revived it. Along the way, remember the values for which this nation is supposed to stand.
Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House (Simon & Schuster, 2007) by Valerie Plame Wilson. The author is the former undercover CIA agent whose cover and identity were deliberately leaked to rightwing columnist Robert Novak (probably illegally and definitely putting numerous lives at risk). This was done in retaliation for the way Plame's husband, former career ambassador Joe Wilson, exposed one of the lies behind the Bush administration's case for invading Iraq. Plame is not a brilliant writer, not even as good as her husband, whose memoir, The Politics of Truth makes very exciting reading. And the way the CIA "redacted" (blacked out) numerous portions of the book (even though everything Plame was relating was supposed to be declassified already), hurts even more. But it is still very important to see "Plame-gate" from Plame's own perspective. The Right has continued to portray her as a bubble head (because she's a gorgeous blonde?) who was a "glorified secretary" at the CIA, but this is not true. Plame was deep cover and worked on countering nuclear proliferation, especially in the Middle East. Outing her probably set back efforts to keep nuclear weapons technology from many very deadly nations and groups. Nice job, Bushies.
Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army (Nation Books, 2007) by Jeremy Scahill. One of the scariest things I have read in years. Since Blackwater is a sympton rather than the entire disease, however, I suggest reading this with P.W. Singer's Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry (Cornell University Press, 2007) and/or Robert Young Pelton's Licensed to Kill: Hired Guns in the War on Terror (Crown Books, 2006) which has just been reprinted in paperback by Three Rivers Press, 2007. Together these works add up to a scary picture of radically privatized military forces, mercenaries, as the wave of the future for neo-cons.
The Conscience of a Liberal (W.W. Norton, 2007) by the Princeton economist and New York Times columnist Paul W. Krugman. Using Barry Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative as anti-type (and the Goldwater volume launched the modern conservative movement in the U.S.), Krugman attempts to show how conservatism has hurt America and how a liberal perspective offers a way forward.
Bill of Wrongs: The Executive Branch's Assault on America's Fundamental Rights (Random House, 2007) begun by the late Texas liberal columnist Molly Ivins and finished by her friend and sometime co-author, Lou DuBose when Molly finally succumbed to cancer. Ivins' writings always combined a wonderful sense of humor with her profound belief in America and scathing attacks on what she called the "sumbitches" who try to take it away. Texas doesn't produce many liberals (Alas! Neither does Kentucky!), but those it does, like Ivins, have style and backbone and humor--something liberals in the Northeast of this fair nation could use.
Thumpin' It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today's Presidential Politics (Westminster/John Knox Press, 2007) by Jacques Berlinerblau. The author is a Jewish biblical scholar and also a Georgetown University professor in political science. This is a must read book--whether or not you are religious and no matter your political orientation.

Well, gentle readers, what have missed this year that's important?

Pakistan's Bhutto Assassinated

2007-12-27T14:28:00.000-05:00

Apparently, she really scared someone. Whether the suicide bomber who killed former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto (and at least 20 others) today was sent by the Islamist extremists, Taliban and al-Qaeda supporters, or by supporters of President Pervez Musharraf (afraid that, even with conditions stacked against her, she might actually defeat him in the upcoming election) or just by someone who thought she was stepping too far away from "a woman's place," it is clear that Bhutto frightened someone enough to eliminate her.

My heart and prayers go out to her family, but also to the people of Pakistan who have longed to a return to democratic rule. I do not know enough about Bhutto and her policies when she was PM, or enough about all of the political landscape of Pakistan, to know if she would have made the best president or not, although as a firm democrat, I naturally support alternatives to Musharaff. But I am an outsider and should have no say in who gets to be president there or not. But I am angry and saddened that Pakistanis now won't get to decide for themselves. The violence which killed Ms. Bhutto and 20 bystanders was also violence to the whole of Pakistani society, forcefully removing from Pakistanis the opposition leader who had the most chance of defeating Musharraf--even after the State of Emergency gave him a chance to rig the field in his favor.

I am also angry at U.S. citizens: No, none of us killed Bhutto and the others. But the voter apathy of so many in this country dishonors the sacrifices like those paid by Bhutto and her followers. Around the world, people are willing to risk death for democracy, to stand in long lines for hours for in order to vote. Yet less than half of eligible citizens in the U.S. are even registered to vote--and among the young (18-25), this percentage is even lower. When elections are stolen elsewhere, the people march into the streets and demand recounts or commit nonviolent, people power, revolutions. When elections are stolen here, we shrug.
When candidates debate issues, we look for a ballgame or a "reality TV" show to watch.

Democracy requires an active citizenship: registering to vote, voting, coming to city council meetings, keeping up with the issues, volunteering for and contributing to campaigns, joining civic watchdog groups, writing letters to the editors of local papers, etc. Sometimes it requires risk (our society regularly extols the valor of our military members for defending such rights--even when a particular conflict may have nothing to do with defending our democracy or anothers--but then we cheapen their sacrifice by not being active citizens!) and struggle. Sometimes there are victims: not only around the world, but here at home (think of the martyrs of the Civil Rights movement, for instance). But nothing worth having is free. Those struggling for democracy in Pakistan will continue after Ms. Bhutto's funeral--even if they are defeated in the upcoming election. I grieve for them, but I do not worry about their longterm future, because they are determined to live free. I do worry about our future: I worry that we will continue to let the rule of law be trampled, the Constitution spat upon by those sworn to uphold it, torture and domestic spying, the elimination of Habeas corpus, indefinite detentions, court packings--and all the rest continue, rather than work and bleed and march to end it.

One of my favorite acoustic, alternative, music groups, "Down to Earth," sing "The Heart is a Muscle the Size of Your Fist." It's not about violence, but about social struggle: union organizing, community organizing, marching together, working together--and the role of anger in the work of social love, including the incredible line, "You can be loving and still be PISSED!" We need, they sing, "A lot more love, a lot more heat--a lot more people in the streets!" The chorus speaks to a way to honor Ms. Bhutto and all the fallen heroes and heroines of democratic struggles for justice:

Keep on loving; Keep on fighting!
Stick together and we just might win!
Shout Freedom's name to the heavens above--
And live each day with a fiercer love!

In solidarity with all the global struggles for justice and peace.

P.S. Bluegrass Roots has a good post on McConnell's hypocrisy over Bhutto's death. Now that Fletcher and Northup are gone, McConnell has to be Kentucky's biggest remaining embarrassment.

End of Year Contributions

2007-12-27T06:12:00.000-05:00

Many people choose to contribute money to good causes at the end of the year, especially those causes which are tax deductible. Our house doesn't work that way. We give throughout the year. But, here is my list of 20 causes to which I think you should consider giving--now, and throughout 2008.

Although not tax deductible, consider contributing to the campaigns of progressive political candidates. Until we can get publicly financed campaign laws, campaigns will cost money. If ordinary people do not contribute in small amounts, candidates will have to raise money from big-monied special interests. If you really want to curb the power of lobbies and money in government, you'll have to give some money now to progressive, grassroots campaigns. Here in Kentucky, I hope you'll think first of Andrew Horne's campaign for the U.S. Senate. Contribute as well to the reelection effort of Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY). When a national political office changes parties (e.g., the 3rd District of Kentucky's change from Anne Northup (R-KY) and the GOP to Yarmuth (D-KY) ), it is most vulnerable to changing back to the previous party with the freshman office holder's first reelection campaign. Yarmuth has been voted an outstanding new member and not only the 3rd District, but all of Kentucky can be proud of the work he has done these two years. So, give him some $, to help him keep his seat!

Outside of Kentucky, I hope you contribute to progressive candidates like Rick Noriega (D-TX), Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer (D-MN) (I know that celebrity Al Franken (D-MN) is the DNC favorite for the MN primary--and all the MN Democrats running are excellent folks--but I honestly think Nelson-Pallmeyer would make the best Senator.), Andrew Rice (D-OK), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Vivien Figures (D-AL) (who will need all the help she can get!), Rocky Caldero (D-AK), Rand Knight (D-GA), Larry LaRocco (D-ID), or Tom Allen (D-ME)--each of whom is running a grassroots Senate campaign against large odds and well-funded opponents.

I am not endorsing a particular presidential candidate (partly because I expect the nominee to be chosen by the time Kentucky's May primary rolls around), but with the Iowa caucuses a week away and the New Hampshire primary only 5 days later, the candidate of your choice could use money right now for last minute commercials, etc. I have contributed to the campaign of Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) because his values and positions are closes to my own. I don't expect him to have much chance to win the nomination or the presidency, but if he can garner enough delegates, he might be able to seriously influence the 2008 Democratic platform. That's my hope and I find it worth the occasional $10 or $20 I have to send him. I split my other presidential campaign contributions between fmr. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), both of whom I like for different reasons--and either of whom I think would make a good president.

If you want healthy, fair, free elections and a well-informed electorate, consider the good folks at Project Vote Smart.

If you are a progressive, you should really have your long-distance carrier as Working Assets and your mobile phone with Credo, a Working Assets subsidiary. This company was founded (1985) with the purpose of using some of its profits each year to fundraise for progressive causes: human rights and civil liberties, the environment, women's rights, the environment, etc. They have given away over $50 million to date and their customers get to help pick the organizations receiving the money. Change over today.

I contribute to the work of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture. It will take making this a religious, spiritual, and moral issue to reverse the acceptance which torture has gained in the U.S. since 9/11--partly because of Busch & Co.'s actions and propaganda (now echoed by ALL of the GOP presidential candidates except for John McCain and longshot libertarian Ron Paul0, but also because of the propaganda of such shows as 24, and The Unit. Still, if you are not person of any particular faith, and still want to contribute to work being done to outlaw torture (again) in this country, consider The Constitution Project, The Center for Constitutional Rights, or the No 2 Torture Campaign.

For human rights broadly construed, I contribute to the work of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. They have similar mandates, but use different methods in ways that complement each other.

Combatting hunger and poverty takes a combination of approaches. I recommend Bread for the World, Habitat for Humanity, Oxfam, and, working for fair trade rather than free trade, Equal Exchange. I also always make the work of the Children's Defense Fund a priority. These are the people who REALLY work to leave no child behind!

For U.S. civil liberties concerns, I contribute to the work of the American Civil Liberties Union. Seldom in our history has the ACLU's work been more necessary. If you aren't a member, join today. If we ever get our Constitution back, much of the work will have been done by attorneys working for the ACLU.

On environmental matters, I don't waste my money on the well-healed, but very cautious Sierra Club, nor the publicity-seeking Greenpeace. I look for fighters, but smart fighters. For my money, there are 3 eco-groups that do incredible service: The Natural Resources Defense Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Environmental Defense.

In terms of grassroots peacemaking, I usually contribute to faith-based efforts such as the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, and Christian Peacemaker Teams. But for secular efforts, I have 2 recommendations of exceptional note: Peace Action and the War Resisters' League. Since I come from a military family and was myself in the army before becoming a conscientious objector, I also have a soft spot for wonderful folks at Veterans for Peace. And since they supplied me with a free lawyer for my CO discharge (when they were known as the National Interreligious Service Board for Conscientious Objectors), I also can never fail to mention the great folks at the Center for Conscience and War.

This hardly exhausts the list of groups worthy to receive your money--not by a long shot. But these are a few of the groups who get my money. Feel free to add your own candidates and include web addresses.

Let us pray (and WORK) for a more just, peaceful, and sustainable new year.

Tell Schumer: Back Horne! Kentuckians Don't Want Lunsford!

2007-12-26T06:38:00.000-05:00

Rumor has it that instead of backing Andrew Horne (D-KY) in his effort to win the U.S. Senate from Obstructionist in Chief Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-KY)and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee are courting Bruce Lunsford (D-KY), former Lt. Governor and failed 2007 gubanatorial candidate to run, instead. Now, look. I understand that the DSCC's job is to get as many Democrats elected to the U.S. Senate as possible. So, Schumer and the DSCC are ALWAYS going to look for the person they think has the best chances of winning, period. They are counting on Lunsford's higher name recognition to make him a better candidate against McConnell than Horne. (For this reason, Horne himself waited until some other, more well known, potential candidates, especially State Auditor Crit Luallen, declined to run for the Senate, before announcing his candidacy.)

Well, excuse me, but Schumer and the DSCC should butt out! Lunsford is NOT a great candidate. That's why he lost the gubanatorial primary in '07 to Steve Beshear (D-KY), who is our newly elected governor. Further, Lunsford may be officially a Democrat, but actually leans Republican. He has contributed mightily to Republican campaigns and causes--and not very much to Democratic ones. The same reasons that the Bluegrass Report showed that Lunsford would have been a poor Governor for Kentucky would also make him a poor U.S. Senator--for Kentucky or the nation. By contrast, Horne, whom the Louisville Courier-Journal admits would be a serious opponent for McConnell, has already won some significant endorsements in the brief time he has been running: Endorsements from VoteVets.org, the progressive organization of military veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who work to end the war/occupation, to change the direction of our foreign policy, and get better treatment for vets and their families, from Change for Kentucky, the Kentucky branch of Democracy for America show that Horne's grassroots campaign is attracting the attention of progressives--the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" as the late Paul Wellstone used to say. I expect future endorsements by labor unions, health care advocates, government reform groups, media reform groups, and such progressive political action groups as MoveOn.org and Progressive Democrats of America. Horne is going to win the nomination and the Senate, but it would be nice to have the DSCC on his side, rather than to have to fight it--and a potentially divisive Spring primary that would only work to McConnell's advantage.

Call Sen. Schumer's office ( 202-224-6542) and/or email him and say that, if the rumors are true, the DSCC should immediately cease courting Bruce Lunsford and, instead, back a progressive Democratic fighter like Andrew Horne. If we Kentucky Democrats flood his office with emails and calls, I think Sen. Schumer will get the idea and realize the error of his ways.

Why Hillary Seems Unlikely to Win Iowa

2007-12-22T17:57:00.000-05:00

The Iowa Caucuses, the first step in the election of U.S. presidents, are only 2 weeks away. Polls for the Democratic Caucuses show a 3-way tie between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Barack Obama (D-IL), and fmr. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) with others trailing badly. Theoretically, any of the top 3 candidates has a real shot at coming in first place in the Caucuses and, thus, clearing the first major hurdle toward winning the Democratic nomination and, hopefully, the White House. But I think this 3-way tie makes it unlikely that Sen. Clinton will win--because of a uniquely Iowan hurdle. Recall how the Caucuses work by watching the video below (put out by the Edwards' campaign, but very accurate about the process):

Now, Hillary has some passionate champions as well as passionate (even vicious) critics, but I can't see that very many think of her as their clear second choice. Caucus-goers whose candidates fail to get the required percentage (usually 15%) must either stay with the undecideds or join a viable group. Now, I can't see the kooky Mike Gravel (D-AK) getting a viable percentage in many precincts. I doubt that Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) or Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) will get 15% in most precincts. Even Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who are polling above the other so-called "second tier" candidates will probably not have viable numbers in every precinct. And the stakes are simply too high in '08 for many people to remain undecided. Pressure will be on for people to caucus for a viable candidate. So, of the "second-tier" candidates, I can see some Biden supporters and some Dodd supporters going with Clinton, but not a lot. I can't see Gravel, Richardson or, especially, Kucinich supporters going with Hillary at all. So, whenever one of those candidates has a precinct in which their caucus fails to be viable, their supporters will vote for a "second choice"--and I expect Edwards and Obama to split most of those "second choice" votes.

For this reason, if the race is really as close as the polls suggest, I think it unlikely for Clinton to come in first in Iowa--and she may even come in third. Whether Obama or Edwards comes in first depends on so many factors that I can't calculate them all: Which issues are given what weight; whether voters prefer a fighter (Edwards) or a healer (Obama), etc.

Now, if I am right, can Hillary recover? Sure--and her best chance is in the New Hampshire primary just 5 days later, where voters just pick a candidate without 2nd choices. She's still ahead there, although Obama is close behind. Only 2 things seem abundantly clear at this point: A Democratic candidate will have to win at least one of the 3 early state primaries/caucuses (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina) to have a real chance at the nomination, and if any of the frontrunners comes in 3rd place in all three races, they probably cannot continue much longer after that.

Edwards absolutely MUST win Iowa, it seems to me, to have either the momentum or the fundraising ability to go further. His chances of winning in New Hampshire seems to hinge on gaining the votes of large numbers of Independent voters (who can choose whether to vote in the Republican or Democratic primary in NH) and no poll gives much indication of how they will vote. He's farther behind in SC, but his ground game is good and his SC followers are passionate. IF he wins Iowa and at least makes a strong showing in NH, he might have time to surge into the lead in SC--and a key part of his campaign is his argument that he is more electable in "red" Southern states. But without a win in Iowa, I think Edwards will be out of the race by February.

Obama needs either a clear win or a strong second place showing in Iowa. Much further back and he will lose both financial support and momentum. If he wins or comes in a very close second in Iowa, I think he can beat Hillary in New Hampshire and in South Carolina (the 2 are tied in SC). He probably needs a clear win in either Iowa or NH to beat Hillary in SC--because he has to convince older African-Americans in the South that "white people will vote for him" before they will take a chance on him. (There are very few African-Americans in Iowa or New Hampshire, but they make up the majority of Democrats in South Carolina.)

Clinton would be hurt more by an Obama win in Iowa than by an Edwards win, or so her campaign thinks. This is because they are convinced they can stop Edwards in both NH and SC (whether or not they are right). But if Obama wins Iowa, particularly if he wins big, then Hillary must massively blitz New Hampshire and stop him cold. If Clinton loses both Iowa and New Hampshire, even if not by much, her campaign is in big trouble because it has banked so hard on her theme of "experience," and the media-generated expectation that she is an "inevitable" Democratic nominee that gave the first 2/3 of the campaign this year the air of an impending coronation rather than a democratic election!

What about that other early state--Nevada? Your guess, gentle readers, is as good as mine. Nevada has only become an early battleground in this election cycle--a result of the growth of Democrats in the West and Southwest, especially among Hispanics. Nevada is also a caucus state, but I don't know how to read it or who is ahead, etc. This one is easier to call for the GOP: Nevada will go for favorite son Sen. John McCain (R-NV). But my guess is that Nevada will be influenced by which candidates have momentum in IA, NH, and SC.

Incidentally, I expect most of the "second tier" Democratic candidates to drop out by Spring, but not Kucinich. Unless he runs completely out of money, I think that Dennis Kucinich will fight for every delegate he can get during the primaries and bring them to the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Why? Because although he cannot win, he might have more success in '08 than in '04 in getting more of his agenda into the Democratic platform. That would be a good thing--pushing whomever the nominee is into a much more progressive direction.

Which Electoral Races Are You Watching?

2007-12-22T16:42:00.000-05:00

Swing State Project wants to know which political races (presidential, congressional, senate, gubanatorial) people in the U.S. are watching. Answering this on their site requires registration. I registered but still couldn't make it work. Maybe my more tech-savvy readers will have better luck. At any rate, other than the race for president, I am, of course, most closely following the Kentucky race for U.S. Senate--cheering on Andrew Horne (D-KY) in his efforts to help us Ditch Mitch! This one race has the potential to change things not only for the Commonwealth, but for the nation and the world. That's because McConnell is the Obstructionist-in-Chief for a Senate minority that (after threatening to abolish the filibuster when it was in the majority) has set the record for filibustering and other obstructions--half way through the 110th Congress!

I am following somewhat most of the Senate races, especially VA, NM, CO, OR, AK, ME, MN & NH--the states where we are most likely to see Democrats pickup open seats or unseat GOP incumbents--and LA, the only state where a Democratic incumbent is in serious trouble. But I have my eye on some races where progressive Democrats are underdogs, but could make some unexpected upsets--including TX(Rick Noriega), ID (the longer Larry Craig refuses to resign, the better Larry LaRocco's chances become), OK (Andrew Rice), NC (Kay Hagan).

After watching her disappointing year as Speaker of the House, I am also watching and hoping that Rep. Nancy Pelosi(D-CA) will face a primary challenge from a progressive candidate in her liberal San Francisco district.

Insurance Won't Pay; Girl Dies

2007-12-22T16:06:00.000-05:00

This is exhibit A of everything wrong with the U.S. approach to healthcare. The family had health insurance, but the girl was denied a transplant (claiming it was "experimental") because of the cost of the operation. Under pressure from bad publicity, the insurance company changed it's mind and authorized the operation--but the girl died before it could be performed.

This is why plans to cover more people or even all citizens are band-aids. The only real solution is to make health care a right, and take profits out of the equation. We need a single-payer, not-for-profit healthcare system like every other industrial democracy. The only presidential candidate proposing such a system is Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). (See his healthcare plan here.) Obama's healthcare plan doesn't even cover everyone. The Edwards & Clinton health care plans (which are modeled after the Nixon plan), although Edwards seems to be trying to build to a single-payer system in steps. At least he knows that one cannot "negotiate" a good system with the HMOs and insurance companies--because, as this tragedy shows, they are the problem. They make money by denying claims and by covering only low-risk insurees, denying anything for preexisting conditions, etc.

There is more support among voters for a single-payer system because it is easier to understand, saves money from lack of redtape, and is the only plan that restores medicine to its rightful place and focus: the health of patients rather than the profits of Big Pharma, insurance companies, and Med Tech companies. We the people of this country must demand, not universal health coverage, but universal, not-for-profit healthCARE as a right. Medicine and healthcare should be distributed to those who need it--not by market means. Market-based distribution for medicine is an example of the rule of money outside its proper sphere--as obscene as prostitution (the distribution of sexual intimacy by market means), bribing the police or courts (the distribution of legal "justice" by market means), or simony (the distribution of clergy or political office by market means).

Healthcare workers: doctors, nurses, lab techs, etc., have a vocation, a calling--similar to a religious vocation. For profit healthcare systems distort this and turn healthcare workers into snake-oil vendors and quackery peddlers--preying on the poor. It is obscene and ought to outrage us.

Quality healthcare is a human right and it is high time U.S. citizens demand it!

Democrats Continue to Fund Iraq War

2007-12-21T21:27:00.000-05:00

Despite huge opposition, the Democratic Congress has accomplished some good things in its first term in control. It raised the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, raised automotive fuel efficiency standards for the first time since 1975, and, despite having many key provisions stripped so that the president would sign it, created an energy law that BEGINS to address global warming. Though falling far short of what is needed, Congress did enact new ethics standards and attempted to limit the role of lobbyists.

These are all important accomplishments. But there is no sugarcoating the fact that the Democratic leadership has failed to do the one thing the voters in '06 put them in charge to do: End the Iraq War. Indeed, by continuing to blink in showdowns with the president and give more funding without firm timelines for withdrawal, the Democrats have now bought into Bush's war and enabled it to continue indefinitely. Why can't they simply allow Bush to veto spending bills with timelines and then let the lack of funds force the end of the war. Past congresses have defunded wars before when it was the only way to force recalcitrant Executive Branch's to end them. But today's Democrats are still afraid of the "they don't support the troops" label.

They have also failed to reverse the disastrous Military Commissions Act with its removal of
Habeas Corpus from detainees at the Gitmo Gulag. They have not closed that gulag down, nor ended torture--and, if not for the courage of Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), the Democratic leadership would have handed Bush everything he wanted to continue spying on innocent Americans--with immunity for collaborating communications corporations. They may yet force such a craven act through the Senate in January if citizens do not support Dodd in stopping them again.

It is abundantly clear that to effect fundamental change in this country, we must do more than elect Democrats. We need to elect progressive, committed politicians, it is true. But we must also have an active social movement of engaged citizens. Lyndon Baines Johnson became the president who signed the most important civil rights legislation in 20th C. U.S. history after pressure (positive and negative) from the nonviolent freedom movement. The rightwing Richard Nixon signed into law the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and other crucial environmental legislation because of a strong enironmental movement. Robert F. Kennedy moved and evolved from a Cold War fan of McCarthy, indifferent to civil rights and known mostly for his prosecutions of the Mafia, into a champion of the poor, of civil and human rights (at home and in South Africa), and an opponent of endless war because of a vital, engaged, U.S. citizenry that was organized and using grassroots energy to change the nation.

Change comes in this nation (and elsewhere) when we have an "insider and outsider" strategy: We work to elect strong, dynamic, progressives within the system and we organize outside the system to support those reformers--and to hold them and others accountable. Grassroots power without any insider support has a very hard time making progress--or even to keep from losing ground. But electing good insiders without grassroots support doesn't work either--they can't successfully take on the special interests and the vested powers (or keep from being seduced) without organized people power.

In 1968, with the assassinations of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (who was the most important leader of the nonviolent black freedom movement and was becoming a major leader in the anti-war movement, too) and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy (D-MA) on the eve of his movement to win the Democratic nomination and the White House, the movements for progressive change in America came to a halt. Since then we have been wandering in the wilderness for 40 years, as Jim Wallis and others have noticed. In 2008, we can begin to undo this and move forward again for human rights, for peacemaking, for the environment, for economic justice--for a better world for our children and grandchildren. That will take both electoral politics--working hard to elect committed change agents with progressive platforms--and organized grassroots social movements for change, too. It's not "top-down" change OR "bottom-up" change strategies that we need, but BOTH.

In 2008, we must declare that the 40 years of wilderness wanderings ushered in by the assassinations of King and Kennedy are over. It's time to enter a new era of promise for all peoples. Jim Wallis likes to say that electoral politics alone ends up simply changing one politician with his or her finger to the wind for another--the key is to change the direction of the wind. Let's blow up a hurricane of progressive change in '08.