Running For America

My Last Post Here

2008-11-08T16:24:00.001-08:00

With the election of Barack Obama, I decided to turn the page myself by simplifying in terms of my blogging. I've developed a new blog called, appropriately "Turning the Page" and I will be posting political observations there, as well as commentary on other issues of the day, thereby folding two or three other blogs into this new one. Feel free to look it over and comment. I will keep this site active until the end of the year in case any of you don't yet know where to find me.

I am, of course, ecstatic about the election, and proud that the majority of Americans showed as much faith in this man as I have.

So Who's Calling Obama a Socialist?

2008-10-29T13:54:00.000-07:00

Who's the flip-flopper in this election?

Obama: A Pragmatist or An Idealogue?

2008-10-25T12:58:00.000-07:00

Prompted by a comment from one of my readers, I have located two articles that support my sense that in electing Barack Obama as our next President, we will not be putting a liberal idealogue in the White House. Obama, rather, is a man who likes to hear all sides of an issue and then forge a practical way through to best deal with the situation at hand. It appears to be in his nature and, given the current economic crisis as well as other difficulties facing our nation, I believe it will be to our advantage.

Please read and consider these articles from the International Herald Tribune and from The New York Times.

A Video for Boomers to Consider Before Nov. 4th

2008-10-23T11:56:00.000-07:00

Here's a somewhat humorous video with a serious message about the election, thanks to Ron Howard, Andy Griffith, and the Fonz (Henry Winkler). Thought you might enjoy it.

See more Ron Howard videos at Funny or Die

Which VP Candidate Would Best Serve?

2008-10-02T07:39:00.000-07:00

Katie Couric hasn't done so well in her new position as anchor or CBS News, but in her recent series of interviews with the vice presidential candidates, particularly with Gov. Sarah Palin, she has done this country a tremendous service. If you'll watch this video in its entirety, I think you'll understand there's one candidate who is prepared to take on the mantle of the presidency and defend the constitution...and there's one who simply isn't:

Watch CBS Videos Online

Where Do You Stand Before Tonight's Debate?

2008-09-26T11:30:00.000-07:00

So the debate is on. But how necessary is it? These candidates have been campaigning for well over a year and I would imagine their positions are fairly well known and understood. But is that the case?

Here's a fun little test provided by ABC News, designed to help you understand which candidate you intuitively line up with.

Take it and then see if, or how, your views change over the course of tonight's debate.

Economic Fundamentals According to Obama

2008-09-16T10:35:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was a black day for our nation's economy, and what was McCain's response? While acknowledging the crises, he continued to opine that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." Obviously, his campaign realized his error in judgement, because later he began to backpedal, claiming that by "fundamentals" he was referring to the American workers (now, that's a stretch). By this morning, he was making no bones about it: The economy is bad, very bad.

Well, I'm not about to vote for a presidential candidate with that much of a learning curve. Here's Obama's lesson on economic fundamentals, delivered in a speech this morning in Golden, Colarado. It's well worth reading every word:

Obama’s Remarks on “Confronting an Economic Crisis”
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama—as prepared for delivery
Confronting an Economic Crisis
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008
Golden, Colorado

Over the last few days, we have seen clearly what’s at stake in this election. The news from Wall Street has shaken the American people’s faith in our economy. The situation with Lehman Brothers and other financial institutions is the latest in a wave of crises that have generated tremendous uncertainty about the future of our financial markets. This is a major threat to our economy and its ability to create good-paying jobs and help working Americans pay their bills, save for their future, and make their mortgage payments.

Since this turmoil began over a year ago, the housing market has collapsed. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to be effectively taken over by the government. Three of America’s five largest investment banks failed or have been sold off in distress. Yesterday, Wall Street suffered its worst losses since just after 9/11. We are in the most serious financial crisis in generations. Yet Senator McCain stood up yesterday and said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong.

A few hours later, his campaign sent him back out to clean up his remarks, and he tried to explain himself again this morning by saying that what he meant was that American workers are strong. But we know that Senator McCain meant what he said the first time, because he has said it over and over again throughout this campaign – no fewer than 16 times, according to one independent count.

Now I certainly don’t fault Senator McCain for all of the problems we’re facing, but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to. Because the truth is, what Senator McCain said yesterday fits with the same economic philosophy that he’s had for 26 years. It’s the philosophy that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down. It’s the philosophy that says even common-sense regulations are unnecessary and unwise. It’s a philosophy that lets Washington lobbyists shred consumer protections and distort our economy so it works for the special interests instead of working people.

We’ve had this philosophy for eight years. We know the results. You feel it in your own lives. Jobs have disappeared, and peoples’ life savings have been put at risk. Millions of families face foreclosure, and millions more have seen their home values plummet. The cost of everything from gas to groceries to health care has gone up, while the dream of a college education for our kids and a secure and dignified retirement for our seniors is slipping away. These are the struggles that Americans are facing. This is the pain that has now trickled up.

So let’s be clear: what we’ve seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed. And I am running for President of the United States because the dreams of the American people must not be endangered any more. It’s time to put an end to a broken system in Washington that is breaking the American economy. It’s time for change that makes a real difference in your lives.

If you want to understand the difference between how Senator McCain and I would govern as President, you can start by taking a look at how we’ve responded to this crisis. Because Senator McCain’s approach was the same as the Bush Administration’s: support ideological policies that made the crisis more likely; do nothing as the crisis hits; and then scramble as the whole thing collapses. My approach has been to try to prevent this turmoil.

In February of 2006, I introduced legislation to stop mortgage transactions that promoted fraud, risk or abuse. A year later, before the crisis hit, I warned Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke about the risks of mounting foreclosures and urged them to bring together all the stakeholders to find solutions to the subprime mortgage meltdown. Senator McCain did nothing.
Last September, I stood up at NASDAQ and said it’s time to realize that we are in this together – that there is no dividing line between Wall Street and Main Street – and warned of a growing loss of trust in our capital markets. Months later, Senator McCain told a newspaper that he’d love to give them a solution to the mortgage crisis, “but” – he said – “I don’t know one.”

In January, I outlined a plan to help revive our faltering economy, which formed the basis for a bipartisan stimulus package that passed the Congress. Senator McCain used the crisis as an excuse to push a so-called stimulus plan that offered another huge and permanent corporate tax cut, including $4 billion for the big oil companies, but no immediate help for workers.

This March, in the wake of the Bear Stearns bailout, I called for a new, 21st century regulatory framework to restore accountability, transparency, and trust in our financial markets. Just a few weeks earlier, Senator McCain made it clear where he stands: “I’m always for less regulation,” he said, and referred to himself as “fundamentally a deregulator.”

This is what happens when you confuse the free market with a free license to let special interests take whatever they can get, however they can get it. This is what happens when you see seven years of incomes falling for the average worker while Wall Street is booming, and declare – as Senator McCain did earlier this year – that we’ve made great progress economically under George Bush. That is how you can reach the conclusion – as late as yesterday – that the fundamentals of the economy are strong.

Well, we have a different way of measuring the fundamentals of our economy. We know that the fundamentals that we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great –that America is a place where you can make it if you try.

Americans have always pursued our dreams within a free market that has been the engine of our progress. It’s a market that has created a prosperity that is the envy of the world, and rewarded the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon of science, and technology, and discovery. But the American economy has worked in large part because we have guided the market’s invisible hand with a higher principle – that America prospers when all Americans can prosper. That is why we have put in place rules of the road to make competition fair, and open, and honest.

Too often, over the last quarter century, we have lost this sense of shared prosperity. And this has not happened by accident. It’s because of decisions made in boardrooms, on trading floors and in Washington. We failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices. We let the special interests put their thumbs on the economic scales. The result has been a distorted market that creates bubbles instead of steady, sustainable growth; a market that favors Wall Street over Main Street, but ends up hurting both.

Let me be clear: the American economy does not stand still, and neither should the rules that govern it. The evolution of industries often warrants regulatory reform - to foster competition, lower prices, or replace outdated oversight structures. Old institutions cannot adequately oversee new practices. Old rules may not fit the roads where our economy is leading. But instead of sensible reform that rewarded success and freed the creative forces of the market, too often we’ve excused an ethic of greed, corner-cutting and inside dealing that threatens the long-term stability of our economic system.

It happened in the 1980s, when we loosened restrictions on Savings and Loans and appointed regulators who ignored even these weaker rules. Too many S&Ls took advantage of the lax rules set by Washington to gamble that they could make big money in speculative real estate. Confident of their clout in Washington, they made hundreds of billions in bad loans, knowing that if they lost money, the government would bail them out. And they were right. The gambles did not pay off, our economy went into recession, and the taxpayers ended up footing the bill. Sound familiar?

And it has happened again during this decade, in part because of how we deregulated the financial services sector. After we repealed outmoded rules instead of updating them, we were left overseeing 21st century innovation with 20th century regulations. When subprime mortgage lending took a reckless and unsustainable turn, a patchwork of regulators systematically and deliberately eliminated the regulations protecting the American people and failed to raise warning flags that could have protected investors and the pensions American workers count on.

This was not the invisible hand of the market at work. These cycles of bubble and bust were symptoms of the ideology that my opponent is running to continue. John McCain has spent decades in Washington supporting financial institutions instead of their customers. In fact, one of the biggest proponents of deregulation in the financial sector is Phil Gramm – the same man who helped write John McCain’s economic plan; the same man who said that we’re going through a ‘mental recession’; and the same man who called the United States of America a “nation of whiners.” So it’s hard to understand how Senator McCain is going to get us out of this crisis by doing the same things with the same old players.

Make no mistake: my opponent is running for four more years of policies that will throw the economy further out of balance. His outrage at Wall Street would be more convincing if he wasn’t offering them more tax cuts. His call for fiscal responsibility would be believable if he wasn’t for more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and more of a trillion dollar war in Iraq paid for with deficit spending and borrowing from foreign creditors like China. His newfound support for regulation bears no resemblance to his scornful attitude towards oversight and enforcement. John McCain cannot be trusted to reestablish proper oversight of our financial markets for one simple reason: he has shown time and again that he does not believe in it.

What has happened these last eight years is not some historical anomaly, so we know what to expect if we try these policies for another four. When lobbyists run your campaign, the special interests end up gaming the system. When the White House is hostile to any kind of oversight, corporations cut corners and consumers pay the price. When regulators are chosen for their disdain for regulation and we gut their ability to enforce the law, then the interests of the American people are not protected. It’s an ideology that intentionally breeds incompetence in Washington and irresponsibility on Wall Street, and it’s time to turn the page.

Just today, Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book – you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem. But here’s the thing – this isn’t 9/11. We know how we got into this mess. What we need now is leadership that gets us out. I’ll provide it, John McCain won’t, and that’s the choice for the American people in this election.

History shows us that there is no substitute for presidential leadership in a time of economic crisis. FDR and Harry Truman didn’t put their heads in the sand, or hand accountability over to a Commission. Bill Clinton didn’t put off hard choices. They led, and that’s what I will do. My priority as President will be the stability of the American economy and the prosperity of the American people. And I will make sure that our response focuses on middle class Americans – not the companies that created the problem.

To get out of this crisis – and to ensure that we are not doomed to repeat a cycle of bubble and bust again and again – we must take immediate measures to create jobs and continue to address the housing crisis; we must build a 21st century regulatory framework, and we must pursue a bold opportunity agenda that creates new jobs and grows the American economy.

To jumpstart job creation, I have proposed a $50 billion Emergency Economic Plan that would save 1 million jobs by rebuilding our infrastructure, repairing our schools, and helping our states and localities avoid damaging budget cuts.

I worked with leaders in Congress to create a new FHA Housing Security Program, which will help stabilize the housing market and allow Americans facing foreclosure to keep their homes at rates they can afford. Going forward, we need to replace Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as we know them with a structure that is focused on helping people buy homes – not engaging in market speculation. We can’t have a situation like the old S&L scandal where its “heads” investors win, and “tails” taxpayers lose.

That’s going to take ending the lobbyist-driven dominance of these institutions that we’ve seen for far too long in Washington.
To prevent fraud in the mortgage market, I’ve proposed tough penalties on fraudulent lenders, and a Home Score system that will ensure consumers fully understand mortgage offers and whether they’ll be able to make payments. To help low- and middle-income families, I will ease the burden on struggling homeowners through a universal homeowner’s tax credit. This will add up to a 10 percent break off the mortgage interest rate for 10 million households. That’s another $500 each year for many middle class families.

Unlike Senator McCain, I will change our bankruptcy laws to make it easier for families to stay in their homes. Right now, if you’re a family that owns one house, bankruptcy judges are actually barred from helping you keep a roof over your head by writing down the value of your mortgage. If you own seven homes, the judge is free to write down any or all of the debt on your second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh homes. Now that may be of comfort to Senator McCain, but that’s the kind of out-of-touch Washington loophole that makes no sense. When I’m President, we’ll make our laws work for working people.

But as we’ve seen the last few days, the crisis in our financial markets now reaches well beyond the housing market. That’s why it’s time to do what I called for last September and again this past March – and it is only more overdue today.

Our capital markets cannot succeed without the public’s trust. It’s time to get serious about regulatory oversight, and that’s what I will do as President. That starts with the core principles for reform that I discussed at Cooper Union.

First, if you’re a financial institution that can borrow from the government, you should be subject to government oversight and supervision. When the Federal Reserve steps in as a lender of last resort, it is providing an insurance policy underwritten by the American taxpayer. In return, taxpayers have every right to expect that financial institutions with access to that credit are not taking excessive risks.

Second, we must reform requirements on all regulated financial institutions. We must strengthen capital requirements, particularly for complex financial instruments like some of the mortgage securities and other derivatives at the center of our current crisis. We must develop and rigorously manage liquidity risk. We must investigate rating agencies and potential conflicts of interest with the people they are rating. And we must establish transparency requirements that demand full disclosure by financial institutions to shareholders and counterparties. As we reform our regulatory system at home, we must address the same problems abroad so that financial institutions around the world are subject to similar rules of the road.

Third, we need to streamline our regulatory agencies. Our overlapping and competing regulatory agencies cannot oversee the large and complex institutions that dominate the financial landscape. Different institutions compete in multiple markets - Washington should not pretend otherwise. A streamlined system will provide better oversight and reduce costs.

Fourth, we need to regulate institutions for what they do, not what they are. Over the last few years, commercial banks and thrift institutions were subject to guidelines on subprime mortgages that did not apply to mortgage brokers and companies. This regulatory framework failed to protect homeowners, and made no sense for our financial system. When it comes to protecting the American people, it should make no difference what kind of institution they are dealing with.

Fifth, we must crack down on trading activity that crosses the line to market manipulation. The last six months have shown that this remains a serious problem in many markets and becomes especially problematic during moments of great financial turmoil. We cannot embrace the administration’s vision of turning over the protection of investors to the industries themselves. We need regulators that actually enforce the rules instead of overlooking them. The SEC should investigate and punish market manipulation, and report its conclusions to Congress.

Sixth, we must establish a process that identifies systemic risks to the financial system like the crisis that has overtaken our economy. Too often, we end up where we are today: dealing with threats to the financial system that weren’t anticipated by regulators. We need a standing financial market advisory group to meet regularly and provide advice to the President, Congress, and regulators on the state of our financial markets and the risks they face. It’s time to anticipate risks before they erupt into a full-blown crisis.

These six principles should guide the legal reforms needed to establish a 21st century regulatory system. But the change we need goes beyond laws and regulation. Financial institutions must do a better job at managing risks. There is something wrong when boards of directors or senior managers don’t understand the implications of the risks assumed by their own institutions. It’s time to realign incentives and CEO compensation packages, so that both high level executives and employees better serve the interests of shareholders.

Finally, the American people must be able to trust that their government is looking out for all of us - not the special interests that have set the agenda in Washington for eight years, and the lobbyists who run John McCain’s campaign.

I’ve spent my career taking on lobbyists and their money, and I’ve won. If you wanted a special favor in Illinois, there was actually a law that let you give campaign cash to politicians for their own personal use. In the State House, they called it business-as-usual. I called it legalized bribery, and while it didn’t make me the most popular guy in Springfield, I put an end to it.

When I got to Washington, we saw some of the worst corruption since Watergate. I led the fight for reform in my party, and let me tell you – not everyone in my party was too happy about it. When I proposed forcing lobbyists to disclose who they’re raising money from and who in Congress they’re funneling it to, I had a few choice words directed my way on the floor of the Senate. But we got it done, and we banned gifts from lobbyists, and free rides on their fancy jets. And I am the only candidate who can say that Washington lobbyists do not fund my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am President of the United States. That’s how we’re going to end the outrage of special interests tipping the scales.

The most important thing we must do is restore opportunity for all Americans. To get our economy growing, we need to recapture that fundamental American promise. That if you work hard, you can pay the bills. That if you get sick, you won’t go bankrupt. That your kids can get a good education, and that we can leave a legacy of greater opportunity to future generations.

That’s the change the American people need. While Senator McCain likes to talk about change these days, his economic program offers nothing but more of the same. The American people need more than change as a slogan– we need change that makes a real difference in your life.

Change means a tax code that doesn’t reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it. I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America. I will eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups – that’s how we’ll grow our economy and create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

I will cut taxes – cut taxes – for 95% of all working families. My opponent doesn’t want you to know this, but under my plan, tax rates will actually be less than they were under Ronald Reagan. If you make less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase one single dime. In fact, I offer three times the tax relief for middle-class families as Senator McCain does – because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

I will finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don’t, you’ll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And I will stop insurance companies from discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most
I will create the jobs of the future by transforming our energy economy. We’ll tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I’ll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I’ll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I’ll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy – wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can’t ever be outsourced.

And now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. I’ll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. But in exchange, I will ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American – if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.

This is the change we need – the kind of bottom up growth and innovation that will advance the American economy by advancing the dreams of all Americans.

Times are hard. I will not pretend that the changes we need will come without cost – though I have presented ways we can achieve these changes in a fiscally responsible way. I know that we’ll have to overcome our doubts and divisions and the determined opposition of powerful special interests before we can truly reform a broken economy and advance opportunity.
But I am running for President because we simply cannot afford four more years of an economic philosophy that works for Wall Street instead of Main Street, and ends up devastating both.

I don’t want to wake up in four years to find that more Americans fell out of the middle-class, and more families lost their savings. I don’t want to see that our country failed to invest in our ability to compete, our children’s future was mortgaged on another mountain of debt, and our financial markets failed to find a firmer footing.

This time – this election – is our chance to stand up and say: enough is enough!

We can do this because Americans have done this before. Time and again, we’ve battled back from adversity by recognizing that common stake that we have in each other’s success. That’s why our economy hasn’t just been the world’s greatest wealth generator – it’s bound America together, it’s created jobs, and it’s made the dream of opportunity a reality for generation after generation of Americans.

Now it falls to us. And I need you to make it happen. If you want the next four years looking just like the last eight, then I am not your candidate. But if you want real change – if you want an economy that rewards work, and that works for Main Street and Wall Street; if you want tax relief for the middle class and millions of new jobs; if you want health care you can afford and education so that our kids can compete; then I ask you to knock on some doors, and make some calls, and talk to your neighbors, and give me your vote on November 4th. And if you do, I promise you – we will win Colorado, we will win this election, and we will change America together.

McCain's Acceptance Speech

2008-09-08T10:45:00.001-07:00

I'm late in posting this, but here is John McCain's Acceptance Speech at the Republican Convention. The actual speech begins about 3:46 in to the video (after all the cheering). It was a good speech, though inaccurate in parts, and particularly personal. I believe his campaign wants the narrative to stay focused on personality (POW, maverick, reformer...at least in the past) and avoid really taking on the issues as much as possible. There's not much in the speech about how exactly he will make America better. He's just basically asking us to trust him.

McCain and Palin Campaigning

2008-09-08T10:19:00.000-07:00

Okay, there are less than 60 days until the election. You would think that each presidential and vice-presidential candidate would use every opportunity to explain their positions. If a potential voter approached and asked a substantive question, don't you imagine they would get at least some semblance of a substantive answer?

Well, check this out for one voter's experience the other day in Albuquerque, NM when he spoke with each candidate on the Republican ticket. (Yes, he turned out to be an Obama supporter, but even had he not been, I imagine this experience would have made up his mind for him.)

I cannot imagine either Obama or Biden responding (or not responding) in this fashion this late in the game. Now I truly do believe McCain's GOP handlers have convinced him his only way to succeed is to avoid the issues and keep it all focused on personality.

One Alaskan's View of Palin

2008-09-06T16:19:00.000-07:00

Granted, there will be a variety of opinions expressed among Alaskans as to their governor's name being placed on the Republican ticket, but I thought this one was fairly well-informed, being that she hails from Governor Palin's hometown and attended so many of the City Council meetings there:

> From Brad Smith to Anne Kilkenny:
> Dear Anne,
> Since you live in Wasilla where Sarah Palin was mayor please tell me about
> her as a person and public official. Did you know her personally? What
> observations can you share about Sarah Palin as she moved forward in Alaska
> politics?
> Regards, Brad
> --------------------------------------
>
> From Anne to Brad:
>
> I have known Sarah since 1992. Wasilla is a small town. Everyone here
> knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a first-name basis.
> My son is a friend of her daughter Bristol. I also am on a first name basis
> with her parents and mother-in-law. I attended more City Council meetings
> during her administration than about 99% of the residents of the city.
>
> She has matured a lot since her early days on the City Council. Thank God.
>
> She is enormously popular, having enjoyed approval ratings above 70%, and
> as high as 80%, as Governor. In every way she's like the most popular girl
> in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and won't vote
> for her can't quit smiling when talking about her because she is a "babe".
>
> She's smart and savvy, but her only real experience is as mayor of a city
> with a population of about 4,500 (at the time), and 1.5 yrs as governor of a
> state with under 700,000 residents.
>
> It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret. She kept
> her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents for eight
> months.
>
> She is "pro-life" and she walks that talk. She recently gave birth to a
> Down's syndrome baby.
>
> She has terrific parents who have been there for her and lots of help
> raising her kids and managing her family. She has good kids. Like all
> politicians, she is a largely absent parent, and spends more time with her
> kids in public when there are cameras rolling than in private. Her family
> was slow to grasp the reality of political life and used to complain about
> her parenting.
>
> She is photogenic in spades. She is a good smiler. She is a former TV
> reporter and is comfortable behind the camera. She is a former beauty
> queen.
>
> She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym.
>
> She is savvy. She doesn't take positions; she just "puts things out there"
> and if they prove to be popular, then she takes credit.
>
> She has taken on the Republican Party power-brokers in Alaska.
>
> Her husband works "2 on, 2 off" on the North Slope for BP and is a champion
> snowmobile racer. He arranges his work schedule so he can fish for salmon
> in Bristol Bay for a month in summer, but by no stretch of the imagination
> is fishing their major source of income. Nor has her life-style ever been
> anything like that of native Alaskans.
>
> Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters; her pro-NRA positions are not
> just political posturing.
>
> During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running this
> small city was turned over to an administrator who she had been pushed to
> hire by party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble
> over precipitous firings which had given rise to a recall attempt.
>
> Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a "fiscal conservative". During her 6 years
> as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During
> those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by
> 38%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced
> progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed
> even food. The tax cuts that she brags about benefited large corporate
> property owners way more than they benefited residents.
>
> The huge increases in tax revenues during her administration weren't enough
> to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed money was needed, too.
> She inherited a city with ZERO debt, but left it with indebtedness of over
> $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for?
> Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? No. $1m for a park.
> $15m-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex which she rushed
> through to build on a piece of property that the City didn't even have clear
> title to, that was still in litigation 7 yrs later--to the delight of the
> lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the
> community but a huge money pit, not the profit- generator she claimed it
> would be. $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 yrs
> without any borrowing. Meanwhile, the City still lacks a sewage treatment
> plant and other basic infrastructure.
>
> While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office re-decorated
> more than once.
>
> These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a small city (population at that
> time of about 4,500). Public indebtedness under her mayoral administration
> increased over $4000 per capita.
>
> As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus in
> Alaska. Rather than invest it in technology that will make us energy
> independent and increase efficiency, she proposed distribution of this
> surplus to every individual in the state.
>
> SPEND AND BORROW. In this time of record state revenues and budget
> surpluses, she recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects,
> even while she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend
> today's surplus, borrow for needs.
>
> She's not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or
> compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren't generated by her or her
> staff. While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly
> respected City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing
> from the library some books that Sarah didn't like. City residents rallied
> to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at
> out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination
> letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the Librarian are on her
> enemies list to this day.
>
> Sarah complained about the "old boy's club", so what did she bring Wasilla?
> A new set of "old boys", including Wasilla's worst-ever Public Works
> Director, the totally unqualified wife of a powerful person in state
> politics. She fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. At the
> City and as Governor she hired/elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people,
> creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally
> grateful, so fiercely loyal-- loyal to the point of abusing their power to
> further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the case of
> pressuring the State's top cop (see below).
>
> Sarah fired Wasilla's Police Chief because he "intimidated" her, she told
> the press. Her recent firing of Alaska's top cop has the ring of familiarity
> about it. He served at her pleasure and she had every legal right to fire
> him, but it's pretty clear that an important factor in her decision to fire
> him was because he wouldn't fire her sister's ex-husband, a State Trooper.
> Under investigation for abuse of power, she has had to admit that more than
> 2 dozen contacts were made between her staff and family to the person that
> she later fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She tried to
> replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded for
> sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew the
> nomination.
>
> She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in help.
> The City Council person who personally escorted her around town introducing
> her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council became one of her
> first targets when she was later elected Mayor. She abruptly fired her loyal
> City Administrator; even people who didn't like the guy were stunned by this
> ruthlessness.
>
> Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything
> publicly about her. People fear her.
>
> When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah demanded
> the best, Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: one of
> the few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no background
> in Oil & Gas issues. Within months of scoring this great job which paid
> $122,400/yr, she was complaining in the press about the high salary. I was
> told that she hated that job: the commute, the structured hours, the work.
> A member of the Commission and the State Chair of the Republican Party was
> ethically challenged, by dramatically quitting and accusing him of ethics
> violations (for which he was fined) she solved all her problems in one fell
> swoop: got out of the job she hated and garnered gobs of media attention as
> the patron saint of ethics and as a gutsy fighter against the status quo.
>
> She is solidly Republican. Her battles with the Republican party were not
> over philosophy. They were over ethics and power. She is no political
> maverick in terms of philosophy.
>
> Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah. They
> don't call her "Saint Sarah"; they call her "Sarah Barracuda" because of her
> unbridled ambition and predatory ruthlessness. When Sarah's mother-in-law
> ran for Mayor, Sarah endorsed the person who was running AGAINST her
> mother-in-law who was a highly respected member of the community and
> experienced manager.
>
> McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President. It scares the heck
> out of me to think that someone as inexperienced as Sarah Palin could become
> President. There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more
> knowledgeable and experienced than she.
>
> However, there's a lot of people who have under-estimated her and are
> regretting it.

What About McCain's Pick?

2008-08-30T12:15:00.000-07:00

I listened to Governor Palin as she accepted her new role and I couldn't help but be impressed, to tell the truth. Actually, other than her rabid anti-abortion views (abortion is unacceptable even in the case of rape or incest), gun positions, and beauty pageant background, she kind of reminded me of myself, only a bit more folksy. She was a basketball player and athlete in high school and majored in Journalism in college and she's not afraid of speaking her mind, even in front of a crowd.

But once the glow faded a bit, and I reconsidered, I have to say that while I'm sure she will do her best and may surpass expectations, there is no way she's prepared to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. Even her own Alaska newspapers recognize and acknowledge this fact. So why did McCain pick her, and what does this selection say about him and this race? Politico has an incisive take on the possible reasons, and they say a lot more about John McCain than Sarah Palin. Read here.

For a presidential candidate who claims he puts the country first to go ahead and take such a chance with our country's future (should he be elected) is truly disingenuous.

Obama's Acceptance Speech and McCain's VP Pick

2008-08-29T10:24:00.000-07:00

Finally, Barack Obama showed the fire in his belly last night as he addressed 75,000 gathered to hear his acceptance speech. He was strong, presidential, forceful, personal, and visionary. I hope to add the video here shortly. What a presidential race this is turning out to be! The Obama/Biden ticket looks solid and prepared for the last legs of this race. Here's what he said last night:

And now, it looks like John McCain has chosen to put a woman on his ticket, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, to counterbalance the historicity of a first African American president with the first female American vice president...also to balance out his Washington insiderness with a complete outsider. We don't know much about her yet, beyond her conservative creds, but this report from MSNBC's First Report leads us to wonder just how well she was vetted:

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
Earlier this month, Gov. Palin praised parts of Obama's energy plan. The link to the press release was not working as of 12:30 p.m. ET. But Google saves everything.

Palin Pleased with Obama's Energy Plan
Includes Alaska's Natural Gas Reserves Print Now Printer Friendly

No. 08-135

August 4, 2008, Fairbanks, Alaska - Governor Sarah Palin today responded to the energy plan put forward by the presumptive Democratic nominee for President, Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

"I am pleased to see Senator Obama acknowledge the huge potential Alaska's natural gas reserves represent in terms of clean energy and sound jobs," Governor Palin said. "The steps taken by the Alaska State Legislature this past week demonstrate that we are ready, willing and able to supply the energy our nation needs."

In a speech given in Lansing, Michigan, Senator Obama called for the completion of the Alaska natural gas pipeline, stating, "Over the next five years, we should also lease more of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska for oil and gas production. And we should also tap more of our substantial natural gas reserves and work with the Canadian government to finally build the Alaska natural gas pipeline, delivering clean natural gas and creating good jobs in the process."

Governor Palin also acknowledged the Senator's proposal to offer $1,000 rebates to those struggling with the high cost of energy.

"We in Alaska feel that crunch and are taking steps to address it right here at home," Governor Palin said. "This is a tool that must be on the table to buy us time until our long-term energy plans can be put into place. We have already enjoyed the support of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, and it is gratifying to see Senator Obama get on board."

The Governor did question the means to pay for Obama's proposed rebate - a windfall profits tax on oil companies. In Alaska, the state's resource valuation system, ACES, provides strong incentives for companies to re-invest their profits in new production.

"Windfall profits taxes alone prevent additional investment in domestic production. Without new supplies from American reserves, our dependency and addiction to foreign sources of oil will continue," Governor Palin said.

Is Any Politician Honest?

2008-08-14T13:42:00.000-07:00

How I feel for Elizabeth Edwards at this moment. He comes clean, she forgives him, and then further revelations begin to dribble forth, showing he hadn't entirely been truthful in his so-called confession. As a former Edwards supporter, I feel betrayed and used and am thoroughly disgusted, disappointed, and demoralized about politics right now. I didn't idolize the guy, but I thought his love and devotion to his family was unquestionable. This awful revelation about his affair only leads me to question the family devotion of Obama. (Ever since I learned of McCain's mistreatment of his first wife and his affair with Cindy, I've known better than to trust his word.) But what about Obama? Is it all a show? Is his love and devotion to his family true? Has he ever been unfaithful to his marriage vows?

These questions are important because, above all, I think Americans want honesty in their president. They want to vote for a candidate they can believe in. If you can't be honest with those closest to you, how can you be honest and forthright with the American people? One thing is sure. It will be a long time before I ever contribute financially to a campaign again.

Needless to say, I'm removing all signs of my prior support of Edwards on this site. It's too bad in a way, because I think he had the right take on matters of policy. He just let his self-interest take over.

The Real Difference

2008-08-06T11:09:00.000-07:00

I haven't posted in months. I guess I needed a breather after Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee...and, besides, I'm gearing up for the publication of my first novel (see www.tanyaparkermills.com if you're curious). But, seriously, I've grown sick and tired of the tit for tat going on between the McCain and Obama campaigns. This video clip of Obama in a recent town hall meeting in Ohio really says it all:

I'm sure I speak for Americans across the country--Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, etc.--when I say that it's high time for some civil debate and discourse. I'm ashamed that Obama hasn't agreed to at least a few joint town hall meetings with McCain. And I'm ashamed that McCain has resorted to his old "McNasty" self. We want to see both of these candidates acting presidential and that means showing they can not only control themselves, but also their staffs.

There's a funny video making the rounds right now, touting Paris Hilton for President. The funny thing is, she almost puts both McCain and Obama to shame. Now that says something about the current political climate.

Just How Did Obama Raise All That Money?

2008-05-19T09:41:00.000-07:00

Just how did a neophyte like Obama go up against the Clinton machine and outraise her hands down? I would say he did it in the same way he'll bring change to Washington...with great organizing ability, openness to new ideas and innovation, and an uncanny knack for attracting true talent. But if you want the full story, check out the following article by Josh Green in The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200806/obama-finance

After reading this, you will understand how Obama's campaign has created a model for political campaigns for years to come. He has truly already changed this country's political landscape.

Edwards Finally Endorses

2008-05-19T09:25:00.000-07:00

I know this is late. I should have posted this last Wednesday as soon as Senator Edwards made his endorsement of Senator Obama official. I guess I was just too happy and content to think about blogging then. I sat there with a smile on my face all through his rousing speech, while my husband kept ranting and raving about how he should have done this much earlier.

But think about it...when Governor Richardson endorsed much earlier, it seemed important at the time and yet, now, who even thinks of Richardson? I think the longer you hold out your endorsement (as long as you don't hold it out too long until after the race has been decided), the more powerful it can be. And there's no doubt that Edwards' endorsement is important at this stage, particularly when Obama needs the white working class the most. I suppose Kentucky will be the real test, but I'm concerned that Edwards isn't campaigning there with Obama (at least as far as I know). And the latest Kentucky poll doesn't look that promising. So I imagine this Tuesday's results will be split again like they were last week. Oregon for Obama and Kentucky for Clinton.

In any event, the math tells us it really doesn't matter anymore. Hillary's only shot is getting the superdelegates to swing her way and, barring some terrible development in the Obama camp, that just isn't going to happen. That's why John Edwards came out and put his stamp of approval on our next Democratic Presidential nominee.

Now, if only Obama would pick him as his running mate (doubtful, I know), then I'd be able to use that Edwards '08 yard sign (along with an Obama '08 yard sign) that's been stored in our Laundry Room since the day it arrived in the mail...about a week after he pulled out of the race!

McCain's Pastor Problem

2008-05-10T12:24:00.000-07:00

Obama has denounced Reverend Wright's anti-American statements as well as his other inflammatory speech, but what does John McCain do? He sought out the endorsement of not just one, but TWO evangelical pastors (no doubt in an effort to secure the so-called conservative vote). I'm sure by now that most Americans have heard about Pastor Hagee and the way he rages against the Catholic Church (calling it the great whore of the earth) as well as other things.

But how many of us have heard of this established pastor in Ohio, a much-needed swing state in the general election this fall?

Are we really at war with Islam? Islamic terrorists are one thing...but they represent only, perhaps, 1% of one of the world's three great religions. But Islam, itself? This is a religion that recognizes Jesus Christ as one of the greatest prophets to have ever lived. This is a religion that, according to its holy book, the Koran, recognizes Christians and Jews alike as "people of the book" (meaning the Bible) and, therefore, kindred spirits in a way since Jews and Christians respect many of the same prophets that Muslims do.

As one who has lived among Muslims in the Middle East, I find it highly alarming that a presidential candidate would tie himself so closely to a man with such a skewed misunderstanding of such a large percentage of the world's population. McCain paints himself as knowledgeable and experienced when it comes to foreign policy, but he's WAY off here...unless he's just pandering for votes. In any case, he has lost my respect entirely. I voted for him in the Primary in 2000, but this is not the same John McCain today.

Ask yourself: Do we really want a war with Islam? Do we really want a President who will support, and not reject, such an idea?

Just checking

2008-04-21T11:44:00.001-07:00

This is a trial to see if I can post from an iMac. I'm thinking of getting one.

Obama's Effect on America's Youth

2008-04-04T10:56:00.000-07:00

Senator Obama's appeal to young voters in this country has been well documented. If you are one of those who can't quite understand why that appeal is so important, I invite you to click on the following and watch the video:

It takes about 15 minutes to watch, but it's well worth it. How long has it been since a government leader has truly inspired our youth? What will it mean for the future of our country if they have a President they can really look up to and trust again?

Conservative Legal Thinker Endorses Obama

2008-03-25T10:16:00.000-07:00

Two days ago on Slate.com, a well-known and well-respected legal scholar who had supported Mitt Romney until he withdrew from the race (and who had served in the Office of Legal Counsel for both Reagan and George H. W. Bush), published his endorsement of Barack Obama in the upcoming presidential election. It reads as follows:

Endorsing Obama

Today I endorse Barack Obama for president of the United States. I believe him to be a person of integrity, intelligence, and genuine good will. I take him at his word that he wants to move the nation beyond its religious and racial divides and that he wants to return the United States to that company of nations committed to human rights. I do not know if his earlier life experience is sufficient for the challenges of the presidency that lie ahead. I doubt we know this about any of the men or women we might select. It likely depends upon the serendipity of the events that cannot be foreseen. I do have confidence that the senator will cast his net widely in search of men and women of diverse, open-minded views and of superior intellectual qualities to assist him in the wide range of responsibilities that he must superintend.

This endorsement may be of little note or consequence, except perhaps that it comes from an unlikely source: namely, a former constitutional legal counsel to two Republican presidents. The endorsement will likely supply no strategic advantage equivalent to that represented by the very helpful accolades the senator has received from many of high stature and accomplishment, including most recently, from Gov. Bill Richardson. Nevertheless, it is important to be said publicly in a public forum in order that it be understood. It is not arrived at without careful thought and some difficulty.

As a Republican, I strongly wish to preserve traditional marriage not as a suspicion or denigration of my homosexual friends but as recognition of the significance of the procreative family as a building block of society. As a Republican and as a Catholic, I believe life begins at conception, and it is important for every life to be given sustenance and encouragement. As a Republican, I strongly believe that the Supreme Court of the United States must be fully dedicated to the rule of law and to the employ of a consistent method of interpretation that keeps the court within its limited judicial role. As a Republican, I believe problems are best resolved closest to their source and that we should never arrogate to a higher level of government that which can be more effectively and efficiently resolved below. As a Republican and a constitutional lawyer, I believe religious freedom does not mean religious separation or mindless exclusion from the public square.

In various ways, Sen. Barack Obama and I may disagree on aspects of these important fundamentals, but I am convinced, based upon his public pronouncements and his personal writing, that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of view and, as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them.

No doubt some of my friends will see this as a matter of party or intellectual treachery. I regret that, and I respect their disagreement. But they will readily agree that as Republicans, we are first Americans. As Americans, we must voice our concerns for the well-being of our nation without partisanship when decisions that have been made endanger the body politic. Our president has involved our nation in a military engagement without sufficient justification or a clear objective. In so doing, he has incurred both tragic loss of life and extraordinary debt jeopardizing the economy and the well-being of the average American citizen. In pursuit of these fatally flawed purposes, the office of the presidency, which it was once my privilege to defend in public office formally, has been distorted beyond its constitutional assignment. Today, I do no more than raise the defense of that important office anew, but as private citizen.

Sept. 11 and the radical Islamic ideology that it represents is a continuing threat to our safety, and the next president must have the honesty to recognize that it, as author Paul Berman has written, "draws on totalitarian inspirations from 20th-century Europe and with its double roots, religious and modern, perversely intertwined. ... wields a lot more power, intellectually speaking, then naïve observers might suppose." Sen. Obama needs to address this extremist movement with the same clarity and honesty with which he has addressed the topic of race in America. Effective criticism of the incumbent for diverting us from this task is a good start, but it is incomplete without a forthright outline of a commitment to undertake, with international partners, the formation of a worldwide entity that will track, detain, prosecute, convict, punish, and thereby stem radical Islam's threat to civil order. I await Sen. Obama's more extended thinking upon this vital subject as he accepts the nomination of his party and engages Sen. McCain in the general campaign discussion to come.

Published Sunday, March 23, 2008 9:18 AM by Doug Kmiec
Filed under: Iraq, John McCain, Douglas W. Kmiec, Barack Obama, OLC, 9/11 plotters, speech, Roe, abortion, terrorism, rule of law

About Doug Kmiec
Douglas W. Kmiec is Caruso Family Chair and Professor of Constitutional Law, Pepperdine University. He served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel (U.S. Assistant Attorney General) for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Former Dean of the law school at The Catholic University of America, Professor Kmiec was a member of the law faculty for nearly two decades at the University of Notre Dame.

Obama's Historic Speech on Race

2008-03-19T12:04:00.000-07:00

As so many have already commented, Barack Obama's speech yesterday on race in America was pivotal and, I believe, historic. Hopefully, it led to many open conversations in homes across America last night and even more open conversations at the water cooler in offices everywhere today...conversations that might begin to take up where he left off: frank and polite discussions about race between the races.

This is, in my opinion, must viewing for all Americans, young and old.

What Does Obama Mean by Change?

2008-02-19T13:20:00.000-08:00

For those unwilling to go to his website and read his proposals for each issue, I came across something Obama posted on two different blogs back on September 30th, 2005. (You can check for yourself at http://obama.senate.gov/blog/ or on the Daily Kos website at http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/30/102745/165.)

In any case, in an article entitled "Tone, Truth, and the Democratic Party," he wrote: "I thought this might be a good opportunity to offer some thoughts about not only judicial confirmations but how to bring about meaningful change in this country."

He goes on to include the following:

"...We won't be able to transform the country with such a polarized electorate. Because the truth of the matter is this: Most of the issues this country faces are hard. They require tough choices, and they require sacrifice. The Bush Administration and the Republican Congress may have made the problems worse, but they won't go away after President Bush is gone. Unless we are open to new ideas, and not just new packaging, we won't change enough hearts and minds to initiate a serious energy or fiscal policy that calls for serious sacrifice. We won't have the popular support to craft a foreign policy that meets the challenges of globalization or terrorism while avoiding isolationism and protecting civil liberties. We certainly won't have a mandate to overhaul a health care policy that overcomes all the entrenched interests that are the legacy of a jerry-rigged health care system. And we won't have the broad political support, or the effective strategies, required to lift large numbers of our fellow citizens out of numbing poverty.

The bottom line is that our job is harder than the conservatives' job. After all, it's easy to articulate a belligerent foreign policy based solely on unilateral military action, a policy that sounds tough and acts dumb; it's harder to craft a foreign policy that's tough and smart. It's easy to dismantle government safety nets; it's harder to transform those safety nets so that they work for people and can be paid for. It's easy to embrace a theological absolutism; it's harder to find the right balance between the legitimate role of faith in our lives and the demands of our civic religion. But that's our job. And I firmly believe that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, or oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government because, in the end, a cynical electorate is a selfish electorate.

Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more "centrist." In fact, I think the whole "centrist" versus "liberal" labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark. Too often, the "centrist" label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don't think Democrats have been bold enough. But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don't work very well. And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans).

Our goal should be to stick to our guns on those core values that make this country great, show a spirit of flexibility and sustained attention that can achieve those goals, and try to create the sort of serious, adult, consensus around our problems that can admit Democrats, Republicans and Independents of good will. This is more than just a matter of "framing," although clarity of language, thought, and heart are required. It's a matter of actually having faith in the American people's ability to hear a real and authentic debate about the issues that matter.

Finally, I am not arguing that we "unilaterally disarm" in the face of Republican attacks, or bite our tongue when this Administration screws up. Whenever they are wrong, inept, or dishonest, we should say so clearly and repeatedly; and whenever they gear up their attack machine, we should respond quickly and forcefully. I am suggesting that the tone we take matters, and that truth, as best we know it, be the hallmark of our response.

My dear friend Paul Simon used to consistently win the votes of much more conservative voters in Southern Illinois because he had mastered the art of "disagreeing without being disagreeable," and they trusted him to tell the truth. Similarly, one of Paul Wellstone's greatest strengths was his ability to deliver a scathing rebuke of the Republicans without ever losing his sense of humor and affability. In fact, I would argue that the most powerful voices of change in the country, from Lincoln to King, have been those who can speak with the utmost conviction about the great issues of the day without ever belittling those who opposed them, and without denying the limits of their own perspectives.

In that spirit, let me end by saying I don't pretend to have all the answers to the challenges we face, and I look forward to periodic conversations with all of you in the months and years to come. I trust that you will continue to let me and other Democrats know when you believe we are screwing up. And I, in turn, will always try and show you the respect and candor one owes his friends and allies."

I'll Take Obama's Experience Over Clinton's Any Day

2008-02-14T16:20:00.000-08:00

He's still riding the wave and it doesn't look like it's cresting yet to me. After slam dunks in the past 8 states, look for Hawaii and Wisconsin to become numbers 9 and 10 in his column...and then come the big enchiladas: Texas and Ohio. While she enjoys a lead in the polls there now, look for that to change. This is not your typical wave, but a Tsunami! And I predict Pennsylvania will follow, as well, in April.

As for those of you who still think Clinton has the necessary experience and his talk is all empty rhetoric, consider the following argument outlined by a reader in the Comments section of today's New Republic:

Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the most qualified candidate for president based on her 'record,' which she says includes her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or 'co-president' - and her seven years in the Senate. Here is a reminder of what that record includes:

As First Lady,

1)Hillary assumed authority over Health Care Reform, a process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill Bradley and Patrick Moynihan, key votes needed to pass her legislation, that she would 'demonize' anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she couldn't even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the House and Senate.)

2)Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two recommendations, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. She then chose Janet Reno. Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as 'my worst mistake.'

3)Hillary recommended Lani Guanier for head of the Civil Rights Commission. When Guanier's radical views became known, her name had to be withdrawn.

4)Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned, Foster committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

5)Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (?Filegate?) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him. FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1996, both the drug use and Hillary's involvement in hiring Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving seven presidents for over thirty years.

6)In order to open slots in the White House for her friends the Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be awarded), Hillary had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office fired; they were reported to the FBI for 'gross mismanagement' and their reputations ruined. After a thirty-month investigation, only one, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two hours.

7)Another of Hillary's assumed duties was directing the 'bimbo eruption squad' and scandal defense: She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all. And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury. And Bill was impeached by the House. And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, 'I do not recall,' 'I have no recollection,' and 'I don't know' 56 times under oath).

8)Hillary decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support. Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother's clients, for a small fee, to get financial support. Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen.

In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary played the 'woman card' by portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her. Hillary's husband further protected her by asking the National Archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their time in the White House, including much of Hillary's correspondence and her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those records.)

As the junior Senator from New York:

1)Hillary has passed no major legislation. She has deferred to the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend to the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11.

2)Hillary's one notable vote...supporting the plan to invade Iraq...she has since disavowed.

Quite a resume? Sounds more like an organized crime family's rap sheet.

Please read the following information gathered from the Library of Congress. Feel free to check these records for yourself.

Clinton v. Obama on Legislative Experience:

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years. These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you:

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death. 10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.

Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive:
16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it, the facts straight from the Senate Record.

Now, I would post those of Obama, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.

During the first (8) eight months of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced 233 regarding healthcare reform, 125 on poverty and public assistance, 112 crime fighting bills, 97 economic bills, 60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills, 21 ethics reform bills, 15 gun control, 6 veterans affairs and many others.

His 1st year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included:

1)"The Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006" (became law)
2)"The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act" (became law)
3)"The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act" (passed the Senate)
4)"The 2007 Government Ethics Bill" (became law)
5)"The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill" (In committee) and many more.

In all, since he entered elected life, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no legislative record.

My Precinct Voted Unanimously for Obama

2008-02-09T15:19:00.000-08:00

I'm still excited and our caucus here in Washington ended almost an hour and a half ago. Turnout at our caucus location (with some 20+ precincts gathering) was about 3 times what they expected, and we had 16 voters show up for my precinct (I think 4 years ago there were 3-4).

In a way, I hope the Democratic Party here in Washington chooses to retain the caucus form of voting because it makes you feel like you really have a say. Not only do you vote, but you get to explain why you're voting the way you are and a real dialogue develops with your neighbors who are participating.

On our first vote, there were 13 votes for Obama, 2 for Clinton, and 1 Uncommitted. Then someone spoke up for Clinton and I spoke up for Obama. But our precinct was small enough that we then had time for almost everyone to explain their preference. There were some really good points brought up all around.

In essence, this is what I said:

Clinton and Obama aren't very far apart on the issues, although Obama matches up better head to head with McCain (48 to 41 in a recent Time poll) than does Clinton (46 to 46). So I decided to look at the qualities in terms of leadership that they would bring to the Presidency and make my decision that way. I have chosen Obama based on 5 characteristics:

Good Judgement --he was against the war in Iraq from the beginning and even foresaw many of the terrible developments that have since transpired.

The right kind of Experience --even though his resume seems thinner than Hillary's, he has had experience in Community Organizing, as evidenced by the tremendous grass roots movement he has started...the election turnouts are really a testament, in part, to his organizing ability; he also has served in both state and federal legislatures and knows how to work across the aisle, bringing people together; and he has taught Constitutional Law and I, for one, will be glad to have a President who knows the Constitution and respects the limits of his powers.

Vision--rather than just reacting to problems, I believe he will begin to transform our government and take us to new heights as an involved citizenry.

Values--transparency rather than secrecy, us rather than him, honesty rather than expediency, diplomacy rather than U.S. imperialism, and a willingness to listen to contrary views as well as supportive ones in coming to his decisions.

Temperament--unlike McCain and Hillary, he doesn't easily lose his temper, but remains calm, cool, and collected...something very important in these hair trigger times.

Well, after all opinions were aired, we took a second vote and this time all 16 voted for Obama. Then we considered who would be our Delegate and Alternate Delegate at the next level...the Legislative District Caucus on April 5th. The only two running were myself and our Precinct Chair. Votes were cast and it was a tie, so we determined which would be the voting Delegate by the toss of a coin. He won, so I'm the Alternate. That means I can go, but won't be voting unless, for some reason, he can't attend. That's okay. It gives me a chance to observe, meet people, and learn more about this whole caucus process.

Also, we had the opportunity to submit resolutions to be considered by the state Democratic Party. At the request of one of the participants, I wrote one up concerning our desire that the Party do away with this whole system of Superdelegates (since it gives undue power to a party official or legislator) and most of us signed it.

All in all, it was an invigorating process. The best part? Michael and Allison took part (while Jason sat off to the side)...so it felt like a family affair.

I'm a Precinct Captain for Obama

2008-02-04T21:40:00.000-08:00

I've been mulling over my choices ever since Edwards dropped out of the race and tonight I finally decided. I had gone to a Benton County Democrats Caucus Training session (in preparation for this Saturday's Caucus in Washington) this past Saturday and heard there of an informational meeting being held tonight in Richland featuring someone from Obama's national headquarters. So I went and joined with about 70+ other citizens in the Tri-Cities to hear his presentation.

I was impressed. First, I was impressed that so many showed up (including two people I knew...one of Allison's friends from another high school and Jason's 7th Grade Science teacher). Then I was impressed that he took the time to have each and every one of us introduce ourselves and tell briefly why we were there. Obama's campaign is every bit as inclusive as they say. I was impressed at their organization and the simplicity of it. And, because I had put so much into Edwards' campaign with nothing to show for it now, I found it easy at the end of the meeting to commit to the candidate who comes closest to Edwards. I volunteered to be a Precinct Captain so that, once Super Tuesday is over and things are all tied up between Hillary and Barack, we can help start the wave of inevitability again for Obama by helping him with a decisive win in Washington on the 9th.

It's too late to go into all my reasons for supporting Obama now (Michael's trying to sleep and I need to sign off), but I promise a lengthier explanation tomorrow.

Maybe I'll end up as a delegate to the National Convention after all. We'll see.

Awaiting Tidal Tuesday

2008-02-01T11:37:00.000-08:00

It's been downhill for me since South Carolina. After a terrific showing in the Democratic debate before the SC Primary, Edwards looked to be on a roll, even snagging an appearance on Letterman. But then the returns came in and the writing was finally on the wall.

He didn't even need to see the Florida returns to make his decision. I was privy to a conference call with him and his wife a few hours after he announced his withdrawal from the presidential race (I'm sure he held it with steering committees in all the different states yet to vote) and I'm certain of one thing: Had he not felt the urgent need for the Democratic ticket to take shape more quickly, given McCain's apparent rise on the other side, he would have remained in the race through to the convention. For the sake of Democratic unity, he got out...so that voters would have a clearer choice. The pundits are now waiting to see whom he will endorse, but I'm not sure he will. And if he doesn't endorse Obama or Clinton before Super Tuesday, then the odds are pretty good he won't at all (after all, it wouldn't be fair to all his supporters who will have already voted on Feb. 5th). He provided some counsel to us as far as our votes go, but that shall remain between us and him.

In any case, I've been in a growing funk now for a week and Super Tuesday doesn't seem so super any more. I'm fortunate in that I don't have to vote until Feb. 9th but, even so, it will be hard to choose between a candidate who seems to inspire such promise that he can raise $32 million in a month (highly suspicious in my mind) or voting "Uncommitted" which seems like no vote at all. One thing is certain: I REFUSE to vote for Hillary, at least in the Primary. Now the General Election may be a different matter. Even the detestable Ann Coulter has gone on record saying she'd vote for Hillary over John McCain.

If you want to understand my support for John Edwards, then watch this "60 Minutes" segment about the ridiculous power of lobbyists in Washington at:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3108688n

Hillary Clinton is not going to take care of this problem and, judging by the amount of money behind Obama, neither will he. My only hope now is that the eventual nominee will appoint Edwards to a cabinet position where he can begin to address the mess (perhaps as Attorney General).

What About John?

2008-01-18T10:12:00.000-08:00

I was relieved to see Romney win Michigan because I hated the idea of the Republican nomination coming down to either McCain or Huckabee. But does Romney get any kind of real credit from the Mainstream Media? Not really. They all buy the line used by McCain that he was essentially a lock-in since he was trolling for votes in his own backyard.

In fact, it seems like the only kind of coverage the media will give Romney is of the negative kind. They made a huge deal of his disagreement with the AP reporter yesterday, describing him as losing his temper. Well, I beg to differ. If you watch the entire clip you'll see that he keeps his cool fairly well...it's the reporter that's huffy and rude and (dare I say it) hardly objective. Of course this guy, Glen Johnson, is the same guy who used to have it in for Romney when he wrote for the Boston Globe. Ah well, at least Romney gets covered. After all, the corporations that own all these media companies have nothing to fear from him.

But what about John Edwards? His campaign has been complaining for a long time now that they're being ignored by the MSM (that's short for mainstream media) and, finally, there's a study out that proves it. The Project for Excellence in Journalism recently took an in-depth look at all the campaign stories from January 6th through January 11th of this year, and guess what they found? Clinton was the main focus or a significant presence in 37% of the stories. Obama was the main focus or significant presence in 32% of the stories. And Edwards? Surprise, surprise! Much like his current standing in the national polls, he was the main focus or a significant presence in only 7% of the campaign stories. Gee, do you think his poll numbers might rise if they gave his campaign more coverage?

Check out this new video, poking fun at the whole situation. I particularly enjoy the ending with Sean Hannity because it makes it all so clear:

Today, in a grass roots effort, supporters of John Edwards are trying to make a point to the mainstream media by trying to donate, in one day, upwards of $7 million to his campaign. It's apparent from the focus group at the end that all John needs to do is get coverage to get his message out there. Let's send a HUGE message to the media and help Edwards put his message out there by going to johnedwards.com and contributing today!

And one more thing. Here's another video in case you think Edwards' campaign has had no impact on this race. Clinton and Obama have been following his lead all along. Why? Because they recognize a winning message when they hear it:

A Little Humor on Michigan Primary Day

2008-01-15T11:09:00.000-08:00

As I nervously await results in the Michigan Primary (hoping for a Romney win over McCain...since the Democrats aren't really in play), it helps to take a step back and laugh a bit at this whole election year. With that in mind, I direct you to the Star Wars Guide to the 2008 Presidential Election, published recently on craigslist.

As a teaser, guess who, from the pictures above, has been deemed this election cycle's Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, Han Solo, and Lando Calrissian?

Enter the following website in your URL and have a few chuckles:

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/526482501.html

I Always Go for the Underdog

2008-01-14T08:09:00.000-08:00

I can't help myself. I love to see the proud and mighty brought down, humbled. David did it to Goliath and politics sure does seem to resemble war lately, doesn't it? The way Clinton and Obama are exchanging blows back and forth I just hope it doesn't leave them both flattened...UNLESS it means that the public finally takes a good long look at John Edwards.

Let them take aim at each other. Edwards has got the true enemy in his sights: the secret money interests that have Washington (and the American people) by the throat. I'm realistic, though. He's lagging far behind in the polls now. He doesn't have anywhere near the funds that his Democratic rivals boast of. And his supporters are probably beginning to hedge their bets. I know I have.

But then I see a video like the one below and I'm reminded again why Edwards' candidacy is so important. He may not win, but it is crucial that his message be heard by as many Americans as possible. There's a moment in the video where you can see Bill Richardson in the background glance toward Hillary Clinton and smile as Edwards is trying to make his point during the last debate, as if to say "Here he goes again...and he hasn't got a chance." That may be, but I understand now why he's in it through the convention. He wants that platform at the Democratic Convention in Denver so that he can reach the biggest American audience possible with his message. Besides, maybe he'll surprise everyone and win this thing.

In any case, I always go for the underdog. Go Edwards!

This Country Needs a Diaper Change

2008-01-11T15:26:00.000-08:00

Inspired by the humorous and brilliant cartoon above (created obviously before the New Hampshire results, since now Republican Mitt Romney is also calling for change), I hereby declare that America is long overdue for a diaper change!

Now we know that when the baby has done its "business" we not only throw out the business but the diaper, as well, IF it is disposable. So we need to ask ourselves, "Is our diaper (i.e., Washington insiders...the ones who carry the business) the kind we can wash out and launder? Or do we need a new set of diapers? And if so, should they be the cheapest name brand or the more expensive kind that are bio-degradable (i.e., uncontaminated by money, lobbyists, etc.)?

Think about it.

We Need Another Debate

2008-01-11T12:03:00.000-08:00

Now don't groan. I know we've had three times as many debates as in any previous presidential primary already and it's gotten to the point that we can predict what sound bite will come out of each candidate's mouth as soon as the question is posed.

But the debate we need is different. Everyone agrees that we have entered into an age where science and technology are at the forefront and if we are not careful, America will soon be left in the dust by such countries as China, India, and Japan. As a result, concerned citizens and scientists throughout the country are calling for a different, focused debate to guage the level of awareness of each candidate when it comes to science and technology.

There is an on-line petition at www.sciencedebate2008.com and I urge all of you to check it out and sign it. In this age of health care needs, diminishing science and math educational scores, and global warming, our next President has to be an individual who is aware of our weaknesses in these areas and has a vision and plan to make them strengths.

As they put it on the website:

Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of The Environment, Health and Medicine, and Science and Technology Policy.

Join in the call to have such a debate before these primaries go on much longer.

No More Polling, Please

2008-01-09T16:34:00.000-08:00

Everyone today, especially the media, is scratching their heads over Hillary's unexpected victory over Obama in New Hampshire yesterday. There has been analysis ad nauseum as to how the pollsters could have gotten it so wrong. Possible causes discussed have included racism, the gender gap, polls not going on long enough, inaccurate and unprofessional exit polling, college kids being away on break, the way Obama and Edwards seemed to gang up on her in Saturday's debate, and certainly Hillary's Emo-Moment (when she teared up) which was broadcast for all to see over and over the day before the polls opened.

I imagine some, if not all, of these may have played some role in upsetting the apple cart. But I think two pundits from the Northeast hit the nail on the head when they said people from New Hampshire like to keep their vote secret and it's not a federal offense to lie to a pollster.

I love it! That should become a national movement. If all Americans would stop agreeing to answer these pollsters, I think a lot of the money spent on these elections would drop significantly. Why? For one thing, candidates wouldn't have to put more ads out to respond to a drop in the polls. Their campaigns wouldn't have to pay for polling at all.

And the best part of all? IT WOULD DRIVE THE MEDIA CRAZY! Americans, let's take back our government by holding our cards close to the vest. Then they'll never know what hit them when we go all in for the candidate of OUR choice (not the media's...OURS).

Some Background on Governor Huckabee

2008-01-09T16:17:00.000-08:00

Mike Huckabee seems to have a real shot at the Republican nomination and, while he is an excellent communicator and debater, I believe there are many things Americans may not yet know about his background, record, views, and experience...things which might cast a different light on this "positive, charming" Southern politician.

He is an ordained Evangelical preacher.

He was a former understudy of Texas televangelist James Robison.

Huckabee has credited divine intervention with some of his political success.

He believes in biblical inerrancy, which says that the Bible is totally without error and completely accurate, including the historical and scientific parts.

He believes our 4.5 billion-year-old Earth is only 6000 years old.

He said that humans did not evolve from “primates” (apparently forgetting that human beings are primates).

He proudly stated that if he becomes president, science will take a back seat to religion. “Science changes with every generation and God doesn’t. So I’ll stick with God if the two are in conflict,” he said.

As governor of Arkansas he rejected the teaching of evolution in schools, resulting in that state receiving an F for its science standards from an independent nationwide survey.

In 2001 Huckabee urged student districts to allow students to pray and proclaimed October as "Student Religious Liberty Month.”

He opposes the separation of church our founding fathers established. He said, “When people say we ought to separate politics from religion, I say to separate the two is absolutely impossible.”

He believes that Armageddon is right around the corner, and that all non-Christians are eternally damned.

In 2002, Huckabee ran for Governor and his wife Janet ran for Arkansas Secretary of State. The New York Times reported this set off an "avalanche of criticism." Mike Huckabee won his race with 53 percent of the vote, while his wife Janet lost her race by 62% to 38%.

Shortly before announcing his candidacy for the President of the United States, Huckabee ordered that the drives of 83 computers and 4 servers be destroyed during his transition phase in leaving office. Documents, e-mails and memos stored on hard drives formed the basis of embarrassing stories about Huckabee, including the allegations regarding personal use of the Governor's Mansion funds. (He does kind of remind me of Nixon, though he's much more charming.)

In 1992, when it was clear that HIV/AIDS was not spread by casual contact, Huckabee advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general population.

He said that a “holocaust of abortions” has artificially created a demand for Mexican labor in the U.S.

As governor of Arkansas he increased state spending 65.3 percent (1996–2004) and supported five tax increases (increasing taxes more than $500 million). He used a taxpayer fund for personal expenses like dog food, pantyhose, and Taco Bell meals, and used inaugural funds to pay for his wife’s clothes.

In November 2006, both Huckabee and his wife drew criticism for creating wedding registries in the amount of over $6000 at both the Target and Dillard's web sites, in conjunction with a housewarming party to celebrate a new house they had purchased in Little Rock.

Arkansas-based Wal-Mart is his biggest campaign donor.

Huckabee supports the ongoing War in Iraq and the troop surge.

He said, “One thing I salute about the president is No Child Left Behind, and no matter what you've heard about it let me tell you it's the best thing that ever happened in education.”

As governor of Arkansas he blocked Medicaid from funding an abortion for a mentally retarded teenager raped by her stepfather (his actions violated federal law which requires states to pay for abortions in cases of rape).

His son was fired as a counselor at a Boy Scout camp for allegedly hanging a stray dog and Huckabee was criticized for covering up the incident. "Without question, [Huckabee] was making a conscious attempt to keep the state police from investigating his son," says I. C. Smith, the former FBI chief in Little Rock,

As governor he was criticized for his handling of the case of Wayne DuMond, a convicted rapist who was released during Huckabee's governorship and who subsequently sexually assaulted and murdered a woman in Missouri.

In December 2007, he used the death of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto as an opportunity to lecture on his illegal immigration policy proclaiming that Pakistan has more illegal immigrants to the United States than any country but Mexico ( INS data indicates that Pakistan is nowhere near the top of the list). Many were puzzled at the connection between the death of the late prime minister and Huckabee’s immigration policy.

In 2006 he pardoned Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards from a reckless driving conviction that happened in Arkansas in 1975.

On December 26, 2007 the conservative organization Judicial Watch announced that Mike Huckabee was named to its list of Washington’s "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians" for 2007. They state that Huckabee, as governor, was the subject of "14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor’s office." Judicial Watch further accused Huckabee of attempting to block the state ethics commission's investigations of the allegations.

He has lost 100 pounds. He compared his weight loss to the experience of a concentration camp, for which the National Jewish Democratic Council chastised Huckabee.

These are all things that ought to be taken into consideration when deciding whether to support this man as our next president. Since he's turned his focus on South Carolina now, after a third place finish in New Hampshire, I hope the citizens of that state will take a long, hard look at him before they cast their ballot his way.

Obama Needs a Closer Look

2008-01-08T10:46:00.000-08:00

As I write this, all reports coming out of New Hampshire seem to forecast a huge win for Barack Obama because turnout is unprecedented. I think it's still tight on the Republican side between McCain and Romney, but no one has any doubts that Obama is about to add another win to his column...and in a big way. The thing I'm looking for is whether Clinton will keep it close or if she'll be passed at the end by Edwards again.

In any case, it is clear that Obama's train has left the station and Edwards and Hillary can only hope to hold on to the caboose to fight again in Nevada, South Carolina, etc.

So how much do we know about this man the press is currently fawning over? What do we really know about his years in the Illinois State Senate? How much did his community organizing work prepare him to make the kinds of huge, sweeping CHANGE he so poetically calls out for? And, most important, how did a one-term U.S. Senator manage to equal the Clinton machine in fundraising?

We need more of these answers before we follow this "prophet" (after all, Chris Matthews, in his usual bloviating way, compared Barack to Moses) to the mountain. At least one journalist has begun delving into his money machine and it looks like this young champion of ethics reform in the Senate has something he wants to hide. Check out Lynn Sweet's piece at

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/01/sweet_obama_secretive_about_fu.html

While I am not an admirer of Hillary, I think her campaign does have a point. Before we anoint this unknown quantity of hope, we ought to know more about HOW he got where he is and HOW (specifically) he proposes to take us to the mountain.

Barack Obama on Iraq

2008-01-04T16:40:00.000-08:00

Other than Dennis Kucinich (who clearly cannot win the Democratic nomination), Senator Obama is the only Democratic candidate who opposed the war from the beginning (although, to be fair, he was not a U.S. Senator at the time). So how would he propose to end the war and bring our troops home?

The following represents his policy on the matter (as taken from his website):

Barack Obama's Plan

Judgment You Can Trust
As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” Obama has been a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq.

In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail;

In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;

In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution
within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq’s neighbors;

In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our
combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.

In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as
president.

Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Press Iraq’s Leaders to Reconcile
The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq’s Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.

Regional Diplomacy
Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction.

Humanitarian Initiative
Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.

Mike Huckabee on Iraq

2008-01-04T16:17:00.000-08:00

A couple of months ago, Americans hardly knew the former governor of Arkansas. His sudden rise in the polls on the Republican side, followed by his victory in Iowa last night, have been spectacular and unexpected...miraculous, as he would put it. It's time we got to know where he stands on the issues.

Taken directly from his website, the following represents his position on Iraq (It seems well thought out and reasonable, from a Republican point of view...my question remains, How much of it really represents his own thinking and how much was crafted by a hired expert? He has not proven himself adept lately in the area of foreign affairs.):

Iraq is a battle in our generational, ideological war on terror.

The Democrats deny that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror even as we fight Al Qaeda there. Al Qaeda seeks permanent bases in Anbar province to plot and train against us.

General Petraeus and our troops are giving their all to provide a window of opportunity for the Iraq government to succeed, while the Democrats are running for the exit doors.

The surge is a military means to achieve the political end of sectarian reconciliation among the Iraqis.

Setting a timetable for withdrawal is a mistake. This country has never declared war until "a week from Wednesday," we have always declared war until victory.

I am focused on winning. Withdrawal would have serious strategic consequences for us and horrific humanitarian consequences for the Iraqis.

I support a regional summit so that Iraq's neighbors become militarily and financially committed to stabilizing Iraq.

Iraq is a battle in our generational, ideological war on terror. The Democrats delusionally deny that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror even as we fight Al Qaeda there. Al Qaeda is a major ally of the Sunni insurgents in their fight against the Shiite majority. One of the most significant events in the Iraq War was Al Qaeda's bombing of the Shiites' Golden Mosque in Samarra in February 2006. That bombing led to the dramatic rise in sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites we've seen ever since, furthering Al Qaeda's goal of fomenting chaos and civil war. What's in it for them? They need territory, a place to plot their evil and train their murderers for another September 11. Al Qaeda intends to keep and expand its bases in the Sunni area of Anbar province. But we've made great progress in denying Al Qaeda that Anbar sanctuary, where the Commandant of the Marines, General Conway, says that "we have turned the corner." Fourteen of Anbar's eighteen tribal leaders no longer support Al Qaeda.

General Petraeus and our troops are giving their all to provide a window of opportunity for the Iraqi government to succeed, while the Democrats are running for the exit doors. The surge has only been in place since the middle of June, but progress has already been made. It's way too early to write an obituary for the surge as the Democrat defeatists are doing. Having unanimously confirmed General Petraeus to lead the surge, the Democrats should let him do the job they sent him to do and await his report in mid-September. They're Monday morning quarterbacking while we're still playing the game, and some of us are playing to win.

To pressure the Iraqis into seizing the day before darkness descends, President Bush and Secretary Gates have been emphatic that this window will not remain open forever. At the same time, setting a timetable for withdrawal tells our enemies they don't have to win, they just have to wait. We have never in our history declared war until "a week from Wednesday," we have always declared war until victory.

I am focused on winning. Withdrawal would have serious strategic consequences for us and horrific humanitarian consequences for the Iraqis. If we leave, Iraq's neighbors on all sides will face a refugee crisis and be drawn into the war: Iran to protect the Shiites; Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan to protect the Sunnis; and Turkey to protect its control over its own Kurd population. Iraq is a crossroads where Arab meets Persian and Kurd, Sunni meets Shiite, so if it's not a peaceful buffer, it can easily become a tinder box for the region. When we deposed Saddam, we emphasized Iraq's central location as a prime place to establish democracy and have it spread. That was the potential dramatic upside. Now we're faced with the potential dramatic downside that the terrorists are fighting to take advantage of: Iraq's central location as a prime place to create chaos and have it spread .

I support a regional summit so that Iraq's neighbors become financially and militarily committed to stabilizing Iraq now rather than financially and militarily committed to widening the war later. This summit will add more voices, Muslim voices, to the pressure to perform we're already applying to the Maliki government.

Iowa Has Spoken

2008-01-04T15:03:00.000-08:00

Everyone pretty much agrees that Iowans were voting for change above all when they stood up for the candidates of their choice in precincts all over the state last night. The change agents on both sides finished 1-2, with both first place finishers--Obama and Huckabee--soundly trouncing the rest of the field. Edwards narrowly defeated Clinton for 2nd place on the Democratic side and appears to be taking the message that it's him or Obama to the people of New Hampshire. Romney, unable to convert enough evangelicals, still finished 2nd among Republicans and now looks to New Hampshire to confirm his status as a change agent in Washington...particularly when compared with McCain, so long a fixture in Washington.

We'll see if Edwards is successful in replacing the Washington insider, Hillary, as Obama's main competition now. It will be a mighty uphill battle, given her advantage in organization, connections, and money. He and his wife are comparing it to the Seabiscuit phenomenon back in the days of the Depression...basically, he's the "people's horse." It reminds me equally of the little engine that could, huffing and puffing its way to keep up with 2 streamlined supersonic trains. But Americans, myself included, love an underdog and so we'll have to see if the people rally to his side in the coming few weeks.

And Romney will try to convince those from the Granite state that they can no longer afford to put the government in the hands of such a Washington insider as McCain...that they should trust his proven management expertise to right this ship of state. Unlike Edwards, he has the money, the organization, and many connections with corporate America. He can stay in the campaign for some time longer. But what he apparently can't do is get most Americans to trust a Mormon.

Being Mormon myself, that's a hard pill to swallow... but I took a long look at the results of each precinct caucus in Iowa (published in the New York Times this morning) and Huckabee bested Romney by a far wider margin in those he won than Obama did with his competitors in the precincts he carried. Either Iowans didn't like Romney's so-called attack ads, or they didn't like his religion. I hope it was the former. Otherwise, it might appear that, while racism has declined, bigotry is still alive and well in our country.

In any case, how did you heed the Iowa Caucus returns? Did you ignore them altogether? Did you forego them for another BCS bowl game? I decided, yesterday morning at the last minute, to kick off the political season with an "Iowa Caucus Watch Party." So, with the support of my husband, I called and invited around 20 couples and about a third showed up. Even though the results were announced all too quickly, we had a great time talking and eating...and we even played a quick game I put together trying to match candidates to some of their most humorous or outlandish quotes.

This primary year is steaming full speed ahead, but 2008 is too important a year to ignore or dismiss. I encourage all of you to start paying attention now if you haven't already tuned in and take part in the political process. Tune in to tomorrow night's debate on ABC at 7 pm (Eastern time)... even if you can only stomach it by throwing a party!

The Field Has Widened Slightly

2007-11-21T10:56:00.001-08:00

Due to strong responses over the course of the last two Democratic debates and recent poll results in Iowa, I've decided to extend coverage to presidential candidates Joe Biden and Mike Huckabee.

While Joe still doesn't show up much poll-wise in Iowa, a good chunk of Iowans remain undecided and he's getting a lot of mention (more than Richardson) both in the mainstream media and in the blogosphere...so I felt I ought to bring him back in. Besides, he's one of the few everyone agrees has the foreign policy experience and he'll likely play a significant role in the next administration, should it be Democratic.

Mike Huckabee is now nipping at Romney's heels in Iowa and shows real movement, so he had to be brought back in. While Thompson lags, Huckabee has momentum and promises an exciting caucus night there in Iowa for the Republicans.

I've Narrowed the Field

2007-09-07T09:44:00.000-07:00

It wasnt' so easy on the Republican side, but I went ahead and made my choices for the top four candidates on both sides. For the Democrats: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson. For the Republicans: Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and the new elephant in the room...Fred Thompson.

I went back and forth a bit between McCain and Mike Huckabee. After all, Huckabee did manage to come in second in the Iowa Straw Poll...and with very little money. But he still doesn't seem to have the name recognition nor the organization to really be a viable contender. And, while McCain seems to have spent most of his money, he's showing signs of life again (he always does better when his back is to the wall) and sounding more like his old "Straight Talk" self, so I gave him the nod.

Now, as long as nobody else decides to enter the race and muck things up even more, my plan is that, come next week, I will begin to parse these various candidates' policies on the important issues I noted in my last posting. First up on Monday: Iraq (and the Middle East in general).

Changes in the Electoral Landscape

2007-08-25T10:37:00.000-07:00

This electoral race got started way too early, with way too much money, too many so-called "debates," and too many candidates. And now, way too many states are trying to leapfrog into the foreground in terms of their Primary Elections or Caucuses.

Seriously, it's given me a headache and caused me to do NOTHING on this blog for a number of months. I've been waiting, on the one hand, for the field on both sides to diminish...but only two candidates have dropped out so far--Jim Gilmore and Tommy Thompson--and both are on the Republican side. The holes their departures have left will almost surely be filled this next month by the long-awaited announcements from Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich (though he's still "iffy") that they are formally entering the Presidential Race. That's going to do nothing to ease my headache.

What will? Perhaps some clarity on both sides. But how can any of these candidates run a clear and well-organized campaign when they are forced to take part in these media-driven soundbite forums they're calling debates every other week or so? How can they know how and where to marshall their staff and volunteers when the rules of the game keep changing in the middle of the game? If we're not going to let Iowa and New Hampshire continue as the first election and caucus in the nation DURING the election year...then we may as well give up this system and go for a NATIONAL PRIMARY DAY! If not that, then at least a regional primary day in which every region would rotate turns at being the first in the country (i.e., the South for 2008, the West for 2012, the Midwest for 2016, etc.).

Ah, but Americans hate change. I guess we haven't been around long enough to understand how powerless we are against the currents of time and how inevitable change is. I say, embrace it. This is a crucial election. Let's vote for a change (and I don't mean that as an endorsement of Obama...I don't believe he's the only candidate for change).

In any case, since I am the master of this blog, come September there will be a change. Whether the fields have narrowed or widened, I'm going to choose the top 4 candidates in each party (a purely subjective choice based mostly on my judgement of those most electable), delete the rest of both fields, and delve into the positions of these 8 candidates in the following areas: Foreign Policy (Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East, and Asia, in particular), Security, Health Care, Education, Energy, National Economy, Environment, Immigration Reform, Poverty, and the Power of the Executive Branch.

A clear plan and the ability to turn off all the media's spin meisters should finally get rid of this headache!

How Best to Debate

2007-05-05T11:44:00.000-07:00

Over the past two weeks, the American public has had the opportunity for a mere introduction to the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates. I say "mere introduction" because the debate format followed by MSNBC in both cases limited candidates to 30-60 second responses...hardly enough time to get in a sound bite, let alone convey real substance. But what else can you do when you've got 8 Democratic and 10 Republican candidates taking their turn and vying for 90 minutes of our attention? Hardly a real chance for any of the second tier candidates to vault into the top tier.

During the next several months, we are bound to see the fields narrowing (even if Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich finally throw their hats in the ring) but, even so, there must be a better way to design these debates so that there is equal opportunity without sacrificing substance.

Wouldn't it be more effective to allow the top three candidates in each party (by polling) automatic entry in a debate and then take turns using one of the second tier candidates so that there are only four candidates on a stage in any given debate? That way we, the American public, can size him up against our front-runners and decide if we should re-think our favorites. It seems like they're having one debate a month, so we'd probably be able to get through the entire field on both sides by the end of summer or early fall (particularly since some are likely to drop out before then due to lack of funds, etc.).

In any case, once each party determines its nominee, I really hope the powers that be (nominees, party officials, and media) will decide to have some very substantive debates leading up to election day, much like those proposed by Gingrich and described in an earlier posting to this blog.

Marvin Kalb made an interesting suggestion along those lines in today's New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/05/opinion/05kalb.html?ex=1336017600&en=2f82cbd351dd9cbd&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Let's take advantage of all these major networks and cable stations and make them all bow to their responsibility to inform the public.

Our Society's Sickness

2007-04-21T10:50:00.000-07:00

While there are many wonderful aspects to our free government and society, there is also an inherent danger in the capitalism on which it's built...and one we must always guard against: that is that the almighty dollar may become more important than the people it is supposed to serve...it becomes the master, not the servant.

I have begun to think of this more and more with recent news coverage, particularly in light of the recent horror at Virginia Tech. This may seem a strange connection, but not if you read the articulate, well thought out essay by Alice Mathias, a Dartmouth college student, that was published in today's New York Times:

http://thegraduates.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/a-killers-media-wish-fulfilled/

Essentially, her point is this: the opportunity to make money off of any story or event will oftentimes lead us to make choices that are not necessarily for the best public good. Members of the media have an increasingly important responsibility to communicate news without, shall we say, "relishing" it.

And that's just what Fox, MSNBC, CNN and even the major network news shows do these days. They beat a story to death through sensationalism and, in the process, immunize us, the viewers, from its true effect. Why do they do this? Because they know it will appeal to all of our baser instincts. Like the ancient Romans gathering to the Coliseum to watch deadly games from a safe distance, we gather in our living rooms day and night to gaze at our televisions and catch all the news that is so often anymore not only not fit to print, but not fit to be seen.

When NBC dangled the killer's videotaped rant out there, how many of us resisted tuning in? I know I didn't. Am I the better for it? Not really. I think I'll begin tuning into ABC again where I hear they are taking a more responsible approach to news coverage.

So what does this have to do with presidential politics? Not much except that, for the most part, we get our view of these candidates through the media. So we should remember that they're likely to present what is most saleable...not necessarily what is most true about a candidate.

An Interesting Proposal

2007-04-09T09:57:00.000-07:00

I came across an interesting idea from E. J. Dionne Jr. in last Monday's Washington Post: States have begun a movement to bypass the Electoral College by passing legislation that will lead to popular election of the president.

How would this work? The Maryland State Senate passed a bill at the end of March "that would commit Maryland's 10 electors to voting for the winner of the nationwide popular vote...The law would not take effect unless states representing a 270-vote electoral college majority pass similar laws. The idea is to create a compact among states genuinely committed to popular rule."

I have long felt frustrated by the Electoral College and particularly so in 2000 when Bush defeated Gore, even though he received 543,895 fewer votes across the country. How can we call ourselves a democracy when the will of the majority is so circumvented?

There is talk each presidential election year about doing away with the EC, but it never goes anywhere because, until now, it was thought that it would require a constitutional amendment. That, in turn, would require the approval of three-quarters of the states, so "only 13 sparsely populated states -- overrepresented in the electoral college -- could block popular election."

As Dionne puts it:

"The American way of electing presidents is antiquated, impractical and dangerous...The democratic solution is for legislatures to agree to use their electoral votes to support the winner nationally. Devised by John R. Koza, a consulting professor at Stanford University -- he also invented the scratch-off lottery ticket -- the idea has been advanced by the National Popular Vote compaign and, in Maryland, by state Sen. Jamie Raskin, a longtime champion of more democratic election and campaign finance laws. Comparable bills have been approved by one legislative chamber in Arkansas, Hawaii and Colorado.

"Opponents of popular election invent scary scenarios to continue subjecting our 21st-century nation to a system invented in the far less democratic 18th century. Most frequently, they warn about having to conduct a nationwide recount in a close election.

"But direct election of presidents works just fine in France and in Mexico, which managed to get through a divisive, terribly narrow presidential election last year. Are opponents of the popular vote saying our country is less competent at running elections than France or Mexico?

"Here's hoping Maryland sets off a quiet revolution that brings our nation's electoral practice into line with our democratic rhetoric. Individual citizens should have the right to elect their president -- directly."

I agree. What do you think?

Romney Needs to Explain His Faith

2007-04-09T09:06:00.000-07:00

With so much additional coverage now that he's a front-runner in terms of fundraising, Mitt Romney shouldn't wait much longer to delineate how and why his LDS faith will or won't impact on his ability to serve as President. Given a coming onslaught of publicity about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he can't afford to hang back much longer and hope American voters will ignore his membership in a church they know so little about.

A major PBS documentary (The Mormons) will air in two parts on April 30th and May 1st, taking a four-hour look at the nation's fourth largest religious denomination. Its director said her intent is to shatter all the stereotypes and clear up the ignorance that surrounds this church. And then there is the less-than-flattering feature film, September Dawn. Due out May 4th, it stars Jon Voight and deals with an embarassing and tragic chapter in the history of the church: the Mountain Meadows Massacre. While the former televised documentary is likely to be quite a bit more even-handed and accurate than this Hollywood depiction, PBS can never hope to get the size of audience that a violent feature film can...particularly when said film is tied to 9-11 the way this one has been.

So what should Romney do to maintain control of the message? (After all, in politics, it's always a good idea to get your own story out before everyone else does.)

As proposed in an Op-Ed piece in today's New York Times, since the former Massachusetts governor is scheduled to give the commencement address at Pat Robertson's Regent University in May, it would provide a perfect opportunity to outline his faith before an audience of conservative evangelicals:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/opinion/09woodward.html?ex=1333771200&en=097454d4ea769eea&amp;amp;ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Up to now, he has been hesitant to do just that, thinking (and perhaps rightly) that a presidential candidate's personal faith should have no bearing on his/her ability to function in the White House. But with all polls indicating that Americans are far less likely to vote for a Mormon than for a woman or an African American, he needs to speak out and convince them that his faith should pose no barrier...otherwise, he cannot hope to be elected.

Global Warming: A Must Issue

2007-04-07T08:22:00.000-07:00

The person we elect as President in 2008 must be ready and able to deal with the issue of Global Warming. I believe it is no longer a matter of debate (even the Bush Administration is acknowledging it as a major concern) and we should take the time to find out now where each candidate stands on this issue.

An important barometer of the effect of global warming was released the other day by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and written up by all the major newspapers, including the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/science/earth/07climate.html?ex=1333684800&en=612362632f25e1ac&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

With our coastal cities at greater risk, increasing drought conditions in the American Southwest, and the threat of even more flooding in the Mississippi delta, our next American President cannot afford to ignore this issue...particularly because steps need to be taken immediately if we are to reduce the vulnerabilities. And that is only taking into consideration our own country. Many of the poorest areas of the world are going to be hit the hardest. It is time for the United States to take the lead at home and abroad in such a crucial effort.

The Power of On-Line Democracy

2007-04-05T10:31:00.000-07:00

Getting out the vote on-line is becoming more and more important, as evidenced by recently announced efforts on two well-known websites: www.moveon.org and www.myspace.com

The liberal Move On group is kicking off a short series of virtual town hall meetings with most of the candidates focusing on one topic at a time. First up is Iraq and it's scheduled for Tuesday, April 10th. It will feature all the candidates except Brownback, Gravel, Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo. In preparation, Move On contacted all its members, inviting them to submit audio recorded questions dealing with Iraq (and Iran), and then asked its members to vote on the best questions, tossing out those deemed off-topic or too impolite. Though I haven't done much with Move On lately, I was contacted and submitted 2 questions myself. It will be interesting to see if either of them made it to the final selection. Future topics include Global Warming and Health Care.

The organizers are also encouraging Move On members to host house parties for the April 10th on-line meeting, with 802 already organized across the country. I'll provide more details as they become available, or feel free to simply go to their website to learn more.

My Space is going straight for the vote and succeeding where other mere states have failed: they have scheduled their own Primary in advance of either Iowa or New Hampshire on January 1st and 2nd in 2008. Supposedly, 85% of My Space users are 18 or older, so all the candidates are taking this website very seriously and each has their own "space" on the site. By far, Barack Obama has the most "friends" currently and would likely win this Primary if it were held today. It will be interesting to see if his popularity holds up over the next eight months and whether this on-line Primary in any way foreshadows the others. (My guess is that it won't.)

I wouldn't be surprised, however, to see Move On do the same kind of thing and ask their members to vote in an on-line Primary early next year. Whatever happens, it's clear that on-line democracy is here to stay!

Elizabeth Edwards Cites Magic Johnson

2007-04-03T10:31:00.000-07:00

I'm not as able as I once was to stay up late and watch ABC's "Nightline," so I missed the telecast last night of their interview with Elizabeth Edwards and her children. Fortunately, it's available online in their webcast and I checked it out today. Lo and behold, I found I wasn't too far off-base in comparing this fine lady with Magic Johnson in a recent column.

See for yourself by clicking on http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3002817 (that is, if you missed the broadcast like me).

In any case, I am more and more assured that this family will be fine, whether in the White House or not.

Like I've Said, Money Won't Cut It

2007-04-02T11:50:00.000-07:00

Most of the first quarter fundraising figures are out among the Democratic contenders (except from Obama's camp and even that is estimated at around $21 million), and it seems Hillary, while setting a new record, has been unable to shake off her major competitors.

That's good in my book. I hate to see the democratic process bought and paid for in either party. In any case, as was proved in the last couple of election cycles, early money doesn't guarantee anything, at least in the primaries. Sure, Bush had all the big money behind him and ended up winning the election (barely), but something tells me the American public has had it up to here with big money's attempts to ram candidates down their throats. What is truly encouraging about the results of this 1st quarter fundraising effort is that so much of the money came from small donors ($100 or less). There also appears to be, in the manner of Dean's candidacy last time, real grass roots efforts in several of the campaigns when it comes to fundraising and spreading the word about their candidate. The more we can see of that, and the less we see of these big million-dollar fundraising events, the better off our electoral process will be.

Should He or Shoudn't He?

2007-03-25T15:15:00.000-07:00

It appears the announcement by John Edwards and his wife that, in spite of her recurrence of cancer, his campaign will "continue strongly" is throwing America into division or, at least, creating a discussion of how best to deal with such a diagnosis.

If you bother to read any of the blogs or comments posted in response to any story on the topic (and I have), it is apparent that approximately two-thirds of the country understands or, at least, respects the Edwards's decision. But another third see it as either a form of denial or craven ambition and neglect of wife and/or children.

There is a certain aspect to this that reminds me of the press conference when Magic Johnson announced he was HIV positive: he was such a popular and well-loved athlete that no one could dismiss him or his plight out of hand and it brought about a greater sympathy for those in similar circumstances. Likewise, Elizabeth Edwards is universally liked and respected (I haven't heard or read a single negative response about the woman from any public or private official). And so, as with Magic, the country's heart has gone out to her and her family in this moment.

I am certainly not comparing HIV/Aids with Cancer, except to say that both can be terminal, and both can strike indiscriminately in ways that sometimes seem most unfair. And, as Magic's high profile gave rise to a greater discussion of how to best deal with his ailment, so Elizabeth's recurrence and spread of cancer has already caused husbands and wives (who have not already had to deal with this...and many have) across the country to wonder: What would I do if my wife were so diagnosed? What would I want my husband to do if I were so diagnosed? What would be best for my family?

If you want a clearer understanding of all that went through the minds of John and Elizabeth, I suggest you read today's NYT article, "In the Hospital, Mrs. Edwards Set Campaign's Fate" at this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/us/politics/25edwards.html?ex=1332561600&en=135f9e32bd9cb07c&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Better yet, tune in to 60 Minutes tonight on CBS when Katie Couric interviews both of them for an hour.

We allow every person running for President their reasons to run, and we allow them their reasons to pull out. For each one of them, it is a personal decision and this is no different. Only the Edwardses know what is best for them. There were two quotes, in particular, from the article that hit me strongly:

"I expect to live a long time," Mrs. Edwards said. "I expect us to have lots and lots of years together. I do believe that. But if that's not the case, I don't want my legacy to be that I pulled somebody who ought to be president out of the race. It's not fair to me, in a sense...My feeling is, if we gave up what we have committed to as our life's work, wouldn't I be getting ready to die? That's what I'd be doing. This cause is not just John's cause, it's my cause."

When asked about the suggestion some have made that the continuing campaign is an act of supreme denial about her cancer, Mrs. Edwards looked momentarily struck. Then, with her husband looking on somewhat tensely, she hurled back: "Absolutely! I am not giving it anything. If it expects to be the boss of me it's gonna have to earn that...I am denying it control over how I spend the rest of my life."

Can we elect a man President whose wife essentially has a death sentence hanging over her head? Absolutely...if we can come to trust that, should her death occur while he is still in office, his performance of his duties will not be unduly impaired. As others have pointed out, FDR dealt with polio while being elected four successive times, Lincoln suffered from depression, JFK had Addison's Disease. There are enough American families affected by cancer and still going on with their lives that they should be testament enough to our ability to endure and overcome such an obstacle.

Edwards Still Running

2007-03-22T11:42:00.000-07:00

When I heard that John Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, had scheduled a press conference following days of testing with doctors, my heart sank. First, I feared her cancer had come back and, while nobody deserves cancer, she certainly has already faced more than her share of challenges...but cancer is unforgiving that way. Second, I feared we were going to lose a vibrant candidate among the Democrats, one who is enough of a threat to keep this from being a 2-horse race in the Primary. Besides, between the three--Clinton, Obama, and Edwards--I definitely lean toward Edwards.

As it turned out, the news was mixed: her cancer is back and no longer curable...but they're hopeful they caught it early and are not quitting the campaign. And if you missed the press conference but have a chance to watch a replay, I suggest you do so because it will show you, in a nutshell, why the Edwards campaign remains compelling. This is a couple whose public fight for the health of this country is now epitomized by their personal fight for the health of Elizabeth. We are fortunate that they discovered the cancer's spread early and that they are still willing and able to champion his ideas.

And if you think he's using his wife's illness to garner more attention and votes, then you are too cynical by half. Their love for each other and this country was all too apparent. Regardless of whether he lasts as a candidate, I, for one, appreciate his openness and dedication. I will certainly be praying for his wife's continuing treatments to be effective.

If We Leave Iraq, Does Al Qaeda Win?

2007-03-15T09:25:00.000-07:00

The line put out by the White House, and by most of those who think we should stay in Iraq until we win, is that our leaving now would only give Al Qaeda the victory. To a certain point, they are right. As pointed out by Kevin Ferris in an editorial titled "Cheney Speaks Truth to Pelosi" in today's Philadelphia Inquirer, getting us out of Iraq is Al Qaeda's first goal:

During a trip to Asia last month, Vice President Cheney, in an ABC News interview, said the troop withdrawal ideas promoted by some leading Democrats were similar to al-Qaeda's plans for Iraq:

"If we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we'll do is validate the al-Qaeda strategy. The al-Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people - in fact, knowing they can't win in a stand-up fight, try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit... .

"You can't look at Iraq in isolation. You've got to look at it in terms of its impact, what we're doing in Afghanistan, what we're doing in Pakistan, what we're doing in Saudi Arabia. All those areas are part of the global battlefield... and you can't quit in one place and then persuade all your allies who are helping you in all those other theaters... to continue the fight."

How does he know the enemy's intent? They tell us.

Here's Osama bin Laden in a 2004 audio message: "The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad."

Bin Laden's right-hand man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, laid out a plan in a July 2005 letter: "The jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals. The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate - over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq. The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage:... the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity."

So Cheney was speaking a simple truth: Al-Qaeda wants the United States out of Iraq. And congressional calls to give up, regardless of conditions on the ground or what happens next in the wider war, validate that strategy.

But Ferris goes on to say that this doesn't necessarily end the debate.

That doesn't mean there can be no dissent to current policy. A free society debates issues, and there are plenty of reasons offered to quit: War itself is a mistake. The initial invasion was a mistake. The occupation has been a series of mistakes. Refereeing a sectarian struggle that goes beyond fighting al-Qaeda is a mistake.

People will advocate as conscience dictates. All Cheney did was point out that advocacy doesn't occur in a vacuum.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) called the vice president's remarks "beneath the dignity of the debate we're engaged in." Wrong. This is precisely the debate we should be engaged in. Everyone wants the war to end, to see the troops safely home. The question is how? Under what terms?

In any case, our next President will have to think long and hard about how to disengage from Iraq in the near future without ceding the country to Al Qaeda and its long-term plans.

Personally, I don't believe Al Qaeda wins if only part one of their plan takes place. The terrorist organization is like a cancer looking to lodge anywhere a central government is destabilized and weak. Americans are wrong when they assume all Muslims are alike and share the same goals as this fundamentalist group. It never had a chance in Iraq until we invaded. If you doubt me, check the dates on those quotes from Osama Bin Laden and his deputy...after we had invaded. They were simply reacting to, and taking advantage of, our offensive. Once we leave and make it possible for Iraq (with the support of Iran, Syria, and other more secular neighboring countries) to sort out its own mess, let's make sure we don't weaken and destabilize any other Middle Eastern governments by any other hasty, pre-emptive moves.

The Next President Cannot Ignore the Palestinians

2007-03-14T11:37:00.000-07:00

We are mainly concerned these days with Iraq and Iran, when it comes to the Middle East, but the issue that gave rise to both of these problem areas has yet to be resolved: a peaceful existence for Israel in the Middle East and a just solution to the Palestinian problem.

It is easy to ignore an essentially stateless people. But a grave danger is building in the Occupied Territories, as more and more hope is being sucked out of the lungs of their youth. Whoever gains the presidency in 2008 would do well to consider an article published two days ago in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/world/middleeast/12intifada.html?ex=1331438400&en=41c081f4be010bfe&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

It's tragic to read but, then, most Americans have no idea what daily life is like for Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. We can wag our fingers and shake our heads at the insanity of suicide bombings, but these are young people growing up without hope in this life and probably longing for any kind of afterlife.

Our next President will have to convince Israeli and Palestinian leaders that it is no longer acceptable to deny these Palestinian youth a basic hope by refusing to make concessions without unacceptable stipulations, walling them in, separating them from each other and the world, taking their land, keeping them unemployed, and inciting them to violent death.

Where Is Our William Wilberforce?

2007-03-10T09:57:00.000-08:00

Last night, I saw the newly released movie, "Amazing Grace," which movingly details one British politician's long concerted effort to bring about the abolition of the Slave Trade in the British empire. It took William Wilberforce and his supporters 18 years from the date of his first speech in Parliament until his bill finally became law in 1807. As we left the theatre, my husband and I discussed the irony that, while we fought to be free from Great Britain, they freed the slaves decades before we did. I find myself wondering this morning if we aren't still trailing the British when it comes to certain political causes (such as getting out of Iraq).

I was interested, then, to read a guest editorial in today's New York Times by Rory Stewart, entitled "Politics Lite: No Sacrifice, No Substance, No Success," giving a British perspective on what is needed in politics today. Part of it reads as follows:

The Labor Party continues to invest in child poverty, but three weeks ago a U.N. agency ranked Britain 18th out of 18 rich countries in a study of children’s well-being. (The United States was 17th.) Islamist terror is answered with unprecedented levels of money and troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and comparatively little investment in intelligence and security, community relations and politics at home.

In Kabul I work with a local government councilor called Aziz, who was a champion wrestler. For 40 years, he has dealt with war, pogroms and government. He is assessed by members of his community on whether he is generous to the poor, courageous even in the face of death, a powerful representative of their interests and able to keep his promises. He and they believe that leadership is an exercise in moral virtue and courage, that politics should be a noble profession and politicians virtuous. A British voter might think that is naïve. But I believe Aziz is right.

It is patronizing to assume that voters can’t handle demanding, imaginative and risky policies. More Britons voted for the contestants on the TV programs “Big Brother” and “Pop Idol” last year than in the national elections. But the way to persuade people to vote is to make politics less, not more, like “Big Brother.”

I believe we need a William Wilberforce in American politics today. He saw what was wrong with his country and, with passion, dedication, and courage, set about changing it. Who will step forward to change our health care crisis, our education crisis, our energy crisis, our poverty crisis, and, most of all, our security crisis? Or are we waiting for the country that gave us "American Idol" to wake up, take the lead again, and show us the way back to a more noble political process, the process envisioned and championed by our own founding fathers?

The Need for Real Dialogue

2007-03-09T09:32:00.000-08:00

While most of my more conservative friends will probably faint at what I'm about to write here, I must admit that at least one of Newt Gingrich's ideas has captured my imagination. Even though he has not yet announced a run for the presidency in '08 (I'm firmly convinced he still intends to), he has definitely entered the campaigning environment through his new web site www.americansolutions.com (a site I highly recommend, at least for one of its recommendations).

At least Newt and I have one thing in common: we're disgusted with the way this whole election process has been revved up, money'd up, and basically taken away from the vast majority of Americans.

His idea: once the candidates of each major party have been selected through the primary system, then have them sit down, once a week for 9 weeks beginning after Labor Day, in a televised dialogue about a particular issue. These dialogues would not resemble what we've come to see as Presidential debates (designed for short, sound bite material with a journalist firing questions...something a candidate now has to "prep" for), but more so the type of Lincoln/Douglas debates from years ago at Cooper Union in New York with no reporter or moderator and a more lengthy time period in which each party's candidate, uninterrupted, can lay out his/her ideas, thinking, and proposals.

If you want a good idea of what this might look like, I suggest you go to www.americansolutions.com and click on the video of Gingrich engaging Mario Cuomo in just such a discussion, with a brief question period by Tim Russert. The result is that you come away with a much broader view of the speakers, their priorities, strategies, how they think and operate.

I know we live in a fast-paced society and that the news media think Americans only have a short attention span. We probably do, for inconsequential things like advertising and entertainment. But electing our next president is so far from inconsequential (witness all the reverberations from the last election throughout our country), that I believe the American people are thirsting for just such a dialogue.

The Power of the Presidency

2007-03-08T09:51:00.000-08:00

Under the Bush Administration, few will argue that presidential power has been stretched as much as possible (the most recent example being the firing of U.S. Prosecutors so that other more desirable candidates can be put in place without congressional interference)...and, mostly, at the urging of Vice President Cheney. Whether or not that stretching has proven successful is debatable but, nevertheless, there has been a real constant tension between this White House and the Legislature as the Administration has tried to extend its grasp in order to establish and carry out its agenda.

But how far should it extend without upsetting the precarious system of checks and balances outlined by our founding fathers? This is a pivotal question for those already campaigning for the office (as well as those waiting in the wings, biding their time before they make a formal announcement). As suggested yesterday by Deputy Editor Daniel Henninger in The Wall Street Journal, Americans should make certain they know where each candidate stands when it comes to the role of the President:

"For the purposes of picking the next president, we should be glad that Democrats have made the presidency itself--its foreign-policy decisions and the use of presidential authority (Guantanamo, wiretapping, the war decision)--the core of their criticism. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are their standard bearers. Logically, one wonders: What do they think a presidency should be? What are their views on the exercise of presidential authority? Let's find out now, before it's too late.

"Historically, a U.S. president's tools are two: soft power and hard power. Soft power is diplomacy. Hard power is the military. The question that one wants answered soon is: Have the Democrats become a soft-power-only party? Hillary Clinton especially has berated the Bush presidency for not being willing to "talk" to the likes of Iran and Syria. Reading Democratic foreign-policy intellectuals of late, it is hard to find the conditions under which they would deploy U.S. military resources. The military option may be on the Democrats' table, but it's buried beneath a foot-high pile of talking points. Have the Democrats, in their opposition to the Bush Doctrine, forced anyone seeking their nomination into a soft-power-only corner? Someone should ask them.

"This matter links unavoidably to presidential authority.

"Presidents and the Congress live in perpetual tension over the uses and limits of presidential authority. Nothing new there. And with George Bush, both Republicans and Democrats have sought to rein in presidential power, notably in their dispute over wiretaps and the FISA statute. But the Democrats have gone further. The current Murtha proposal in the House on troop deployments is a hard challenge to presidential authority. They also have tried to thwart less controversial exercises of presidential authority--refusing votes on judicial nominees and putting holds on executive-branch appointments.

"Sen. Clinton, as president, would you assent to these limits on executive power, or would you refuse to abide them? Sen. Edwards, is Carl Levin's reading of the FISA statute on the wiretapping of suspected terrorists your reading of that statute? Sen. Obama, do you support the Murtha proposal on Iraq? Could you all elaborate your understanding of the term, "commander in chief"? Or the War Powers Resolution. Or the pardon power.

"Congressional ambivalence toward presidential authority is likely a large part of the fact that no sitting senators other than John F. Kennedy and Warren G. Harding have ascended to the presidency. Rudy Giuliani may be outstripping John McCain because voters see Sen. McCain as a creature, however eminent, of Congress. Bill Clinton established the outer limits of domestic presidential authority. Would Clinton-44 settle for less? Not likely, but someone should ask her.

"Even if you argue that Mr. Bush brought this on himself, the fact remains that presidential authority is in a hole. At this rate of erosion, there will be such lack of clarity about the presidential role come January 2009 that any new president will spend an entire term merely reestablishing his or her authority. A Democratic president who hasn't drawn a line in the presidential sand will be in hock to the party's pacifist left. Absent a vigorous debate on these matters, we are likely to elect a weak President, no matter who wins.

"There is no bigger campaign issue than the proper role of the presidency. On current course, our winner the morning of Nov. 5, 2008 may be uttering Robert Redford's famous last line in "The Candidate": "What do we do now?" As with the primaries, let's move up the answer to that question from too late to very early."

Perhaps this is one of the first issues the candidates ought to debate because, let's face it, they can't fulfill any of their campaign promises without real cooperation between the different branches of government.

Disheartening Smear Tactics So Early

2007-03-05T16:52:00.000-08:00

You would think that with the presidential election still 20 months away, any campaigning at this point would be civil, polite, and issues-oriented. And, generally speaking, it has been (except for that brouhaha raised by David Geffen's less than complementary remarks concerning the Clintons...which seems to have died away since both Senators Obama and Clinton appeared to behave cordially to each other in their joint appearance yesterday in Selma, Alabama).

But you must never discount Ann Coulter's appetite for slash and burn commentary in her quest for coverage, book sales, and...oh, yes, the conservative cause. She's like the Republican Party's personal pet pit bull. Watch out for her bite! It's hard to dismiss the notion that they let her and others somewhat like her (because, really, no one is QUITE like Ann Coulter) do the dirty work for them. Who needs negative attack ads when she's prancing from show to show, traveling city to city, slandering/slaughtering any Democratic candidate they may deem most dangerous? (John Edwards is beginning to look better and better to me since they obviously fear him.)

After Coulter referred to Edwards as a "faggot" in a new low at the recent CPAC meeting, you would think she'd had her fill because she's certainly been slammed right and left for her behavior. But, no. According to Editor and Publisher, she's now laying into his campaign manager:

"Coulter: Edwards' Campaign Manager 'Fronting for Arab Terrorists' By E&P Staff Published: March 05, 2007 11:00 AM ET

"NEW YORK Ann Coulter, fresh from implying that John Edwards is a "faggot," now has a statement on her Web site saying Edwards campaign manager David Bonior "is fronting for Arab terrorists."Coulter made the homophobic slur about Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate, during a Friday speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference.Soon after, Bonior announced he was sending out a fund-raising letter seeking "Coulter Cash" to "show every would-be Republican mouthpiece that their bigoted attacks will not intimidate this campaign."A copy of Bonior's letter was posted on Coulter's Web site, with this note underneath: "It's always good to divert Bonior from his principal pastime which is fronting for Arab terrorists." Bonior was elected to Congress 13 times in Michigan, and served in the U.S. Air Force from 1968 to 1972. Universal Press Syndicate distributes Coulter's weekly newspaper column. A spokesperson there told E&P today that Universal would not comment about something Coulter said outside her column. The syndicate also declined to comment on what steps it might be taking if Coulter had used the "N" word instead of the "F" word.Coulter's Friday remark went as follows: "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I -- so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."Audience members at the conservative gathering initially appeared startled, but then many of them laughed and applauded Coulter's slur."

At least, Edwards had the sense and decency not to descend to her level and simply ignored her. But I must say I am disheartened that such smearing has begun so early. I am even more disheartened to realize there is actually a public out there who applauds what she says and the way she says it.

Obama or Clinton? Giuliani or McCain? Not so fast there...

2007-03-02T11:58:00.000-08:00

I believe the media, as much as money, is doing its best to force a very early primary decision on the American people and I, for one, won't stand for it. Since I won't stand for it, then I have to do something and I figured this blog might be my best response.

In the last couple of days, with new polls out, I hear everyone from Wolf Blitzer to Chris Matthews marginalizing everyone but the two front-runners in each party. Well, I'm sorry, but there's no such thing as a CNN Primary, an MSNBC Primary, or a FOX News Primary. The first state primary in our country is several months away and, as far as I'm concerned, anything can happen over such a span of time.

The problem: media and money are working hand in hand. The money is flowing to those candidates capturing the most media attention. And the media is awestruck over those candidates pulling in the biggest donations. Let's face it. All the media wants is a bigger audience, so they're going to push whoever pulls in the biggest audience. America's real problems are secondary. It all boils down to money. A bigger audience means more money. Of course they're going to cover every little catfight (like the recent dust-up between the camps of Hillary and Barack...and the oncoming one on Sunday when they're both seeking the black vote in Selma, Alabama just a block away from each other) and ignore discussing the positions of "lesser" candidates, until they have to deal with them in one of the few scheduled debates.

I'm probably fighting a losing battle here, but this will be one small corner of the media where all announced candidates will be looked at, reviewed, and given a chance to communicate their message. I don't care so much about charisma, looks, or experience. After all, although he was an excellent speaker, I would guess Abraham Lincoln had the charisma of a log, the looks of...well, I needn't go there, and not a whole lot of experience. But he was a tremendous President. What I do care about (and what I believe most Americans care about) is HONESTY, VISION, REAL AND PRACTICAL IDEAS, and a sense that the candidate can actually DO half the stuff that he/she promises.

This blog will also try to reflect our current and developing political climate. After all, these candidates' positions need to be evaluated in some kind of context. Some posts will have nothing to do with any particular candidate, but merely be a reaction to some current political issue because, after all, once the election has come and gone there will still be a certain group of people running the country. And they need oversight.

Aren't we glad we live in a country where the common citizen can speak, write, or blog freely? I know I am.