Stanford Democrats

The GOP, "Voter Fraud", and Vote Suppression

2007-04-12T12:50:00.000-07:00

How can you decrease voter turnout amongst Democratic constituencies? Institute onerous voter ID laws that make it hard or impossible for poor and minorities to vote. (Not to mention highly mobile young people.)

How can you get some of those stupid voter ID laws passed to suppress voter turnout? By manufacturing bogus cases of "voter fraud" and directing millions of tax payer dollars to pursue these false claims. OK, that's not enough. But what the GOP has done over the last five years or so was to generate a hysteria about voter fraud. Guess what? Their claims of massive "voter fraud" have been shown to be without merit. Or, to put it bluntly, a bunch of bullpop. The GOP has been spending taxpayer dollars on pure, unadulterated bullplop. ("Bullflop" is a Simpsons reference that fits well into this story.)

Evidence is all over the place that puts to rest the false claim of concerted "voter fraud" efforts, as The New York Times clearly shows. (See Kevin for a little more.)

Unfortunately, this has a seemingly direct connection to the recent firing of certain US Attorneys. Two states close to my heart, New Mexico (my home state) and Washington (where I went to undergrad), had US Attorneys fired. Part of the reason for their termination seems to be that they were not interested in pushing bogus "voter fraud" cases that the GOP wanted to pursue for partisan gain. I discussed some of the GOP hackery in Washington state a while back. It's a small look at what the GOP does and does not consider "voter fraud".

RIP Kurt Vonnegut

2007-04-12T10:20:00.000-07:00

I first read Vonnegut when I was in high school but didn't pay that much attention. When I got to college a girl I knew gave me Cat's Cradle and I became hooked. I have now read most of Vonnegut's books. I really enjoy his ability to talk about serious issues with wit and hilarity. I often find humor and sarcasm to be a way of coping with frustration.

I've mentioned to friends that if I were to describe myself as a book, I'd be Gulliver's Travels or a Vonnegut. Those who talk to me enough probably notice a Vonnegut-esque sarcasm. We are all losing a brilliant writer.

(Photo from the Times via C&L.)

Six Million Dollars Is Something

2007-04-06T18:12:00.000-07:00

With Clinton and Obama getting over $20 million in Q1, it's easy to downplay even Edwards's fundraising total of $14 million. But Kevin Drum notes that Bill Richardson's $6 million isn't too shabby. The last cycle, that would have been a pretty solid total for Q1 of 2003 and have garnered some press. But as Kevin notes, Richardson was able to get a good amount of money despite being an unknown because he receives almost no press (even though he's negotiating with N. Korea!)

Of the declared candidates, Richardson is by far my favorite candidate. And if Clark doesn't jump in, then you can bet I'll be eager to help the Richardson campaign. Really, name a current candidate who has more valuable experience and has accomplished as much as Richardson. Perhaps in a time where demonstrated competence in a variety of areas was desirable for a presidential candidates, everyone would be talking about Richardson instead of those other three (who I'm happy to vote for should they win the primary). Too bad we're in the Britney Spears era of politics. I would welcome substantive policy discussions about the direction the U.S. should take.

Yo, Joe!

2007-03-27T16:58:00.000-07:00

I'll admit it. I prefer Joe Biden as president over both Edwards and Obama. I saw him give the best political speech I've ever heard back in '04. And that includes President Clinton and Obama's '04 convention speech.

But I like Biden for reasons other than his oratory. He's a pretty wonky guy who has delivered some common sense legislation for longer than Edwards and Obama have been in public office--combined. The latest is his amendment to get money for the COPS program. From his website:

Senator Biden is the author of the 1994 Crime Law that is widely credited with helping to create the lowest crime rates in decades, and has been pushing to get this legislation passed, particularly in light of recent FBI statistics that show a steady increase in violent crime. Last summer the FBI released its 2005 Uniform Crime Reports and found that murders were up 3.4%. Also, the Police Executive Research Forum recently released an updated examination of crime numbers from 56 cities around the country. They examined the two year trends and found that total homicides were 10.6% higher in 2006 than they were in 2004. Homicide rates in major cities across America were even higher according to the study, which reported 20% increases in Baltimore, Charlotte, Charleston, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Newark, and Seattle, among others.

Biden isn't my first choice, but he's not far behind my top two choices (Clark, Richardson) because of his pragmatism and understanding of how to get things done. In a fair world, he'd be getting a lot more publicity than he currently is. He is spoken of a lot when foreign policy is discussed, but his deep understanding of domestic issues is really quite impressive.

It's a shame that experience and results don't matter much in today's presidential politics.

This guy should consider running for president

2007-03-25T02:23:00.000-07:00

In a stunning move demonstrating that innovative, "out-of-the-box" thinking we've heard so much about, State Senator Dan Patrick (Idiot-TX) has proposed a gameshow-esque solution to the abortion debate. In his brilliant, brilliant scheme, the State of Texas would offer $500 in exchange for the pregnant woman not having an abortion.
It's libertarian "Deal-or-No Deal" policies like this that remind us of the power and grace of the American entrepreneurial spirit. And to think the idea is being criticized as "violating Texas laws against buying babies"!

Excerpt:

"If this incentive would give pause and change the mind of 5 percent of those women, that's 3,000 lives. That's almost as many people as we've lost in Iraq," Patrick said.

Yes. If only we could have somehow prevented deaths in Iraq.
Hey! Maybe we could use a bizarre bribery program there, too!

[CNN: Texas lawmaker offers choice: Abortion or $500]

Good News For Richardson

2007-03-23T14:41:00.000-07:00

Finally. Some good news for the most decorated and experienced Democrat in the presidential field, Bill Richardson. He just landed the support of Howard Dean's former pollster. I might be a little biased because I grew up in New Mexico, but if you want more than cheap and easy rhetoric, Bill Richardson is worth another look. It's a shame that a former UN ambassador (frequently called on for diplomatic efforts), who was also Secretary of Energy gets so little press when our country is in such a dire situation internationally and trying to develop an alternative energy policy. Oh yeah, he's also the popular governor of a key swing state in the "important" West. How he manages to go under the radar is beyond me.

I Hope Everything Is OK

2007-03-21T21:58:00.000-07:00

I know I haven't said much nice about Edwards lately, but I have been meaning too. He's taking some serious steps of late and has now moved above Obama on my list. I'm a little worried about the latest news on Edwards. I know he hurts my top candidates chances, but I hope he drops out for political, rather than personal reasons.

Do Unions Make the US Less Secure?

2007-03-14T02:38:00.000-07:00

I'm up late working and not entirely focused on the news, but this was quite the jaw dropper:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) criticized the legislation, saying it would weaken U.S. security overall by "pumping for big labor." By allowing the workers to unionize, Democrats "would make the Department of Homeland Security more like the Department of Motor Vehicles," he said.

Really, what else is there to say? According to mainstream Republicanism (only 10 GOPers voted for the 9/11 recommendations bill in question), skilled union workers are a threat to American security.

Welcome to Grover Norquist's America, folks!

Revisiting Don't Ask, Don't Tell

2007-03-14T02:16:00.000-07:00

Life long Republican and former Senator from Wyoming, Alan Simpson, thinks it's worth reviewing and overturning the anti-gay "don't ask don't tell" policy. I don't have much to add to what Senator Simpson says since I share many of the same thoughts. But one thing he says is worth pointing out:

First, America's views on homosexuals serving openly in the military have changed dramatically. The percentage of Americans in favor has grown from 57 percent in 1993 to a whopping 91 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds surveyed in a Gallup poll in 2003.

Young people, and the ones most likely to be joining the military these days, overwhelmingly support this idea. It's time the older folks start looking to the views of the people who will be serving instead of their own outdated views. It's not just about equality, it's about national security.

Leave Me Out Of It, Senator Obama!

2007-03-13T15:25:00.000-07:00

I'm a little tired of hearing Obama say that our enemy is cynicism, subtly implying that Dems are equally to blame for the current political problems. I find that offensive. It wasn't Democrats who spent tens of millions of dollars trying to "nail" Clinton, who had an illegal phone-jamming operation in New Hampshire, who sent harassing and misleading phone calls to voters in key battleground districts; it wasn't Democrats these past 6 years who have abused the power of the presidency, who decimated FEMA, attacked the American safety net and screwed over our veterans. It was the GOP.

The cynicism that I see is from the fact that Bush and the GOP have continually topped themselves on incompetence and dishonesty. I never trusted Bush to do a good job (I didn't vote for him in 2000 or 2004), but even I was surprised just how atrocious he turned out to be on so many different issues.

Based on their records and achievements, I have Obama over Edwards. But Obama's consistent lumping the Democrats in the same league, however subtly, is making me reevaluate that. Our problems are predominately one-sided at this point. Blurring that distinction gives the Republicans who have most contributed to the current cynicism some cover.

I'm tired of hearing Cheney and Fox News say that I want to help the terrorists. I'm also tired of Obama implying that I'm part of the current political problems. I realize he may not have a campaign if he stops, but it's starting to wear a little thin.

The Politics of 2Pac

2007-03-11T19:32:00.000-07:00

There are many contradictions that surround 2Pac's worldview that weren't addressed in his biographical movie, 2Pac Resurrection. But he has provided me with a lot of things to think about. For instance, this snippet from his song, "Dear Mama":

They say I'm wrong and I'm heartless, but all along
I was lookin for a father he was gone
I hung around with the Thugs, and even though they sold drugs
They showed a young brother love
I moved out and started really hangin
I needed money of my own so I started slangin
I ain't guilty cause, even though I sell rocks
It feels good puttin money in your mailbox
I love payin rent when the rent's due
I hope ya got the diamond necklace that I sent to you

There is so much in there when you take a close look at it. Not every child is lucky enough to have loving parents and that, as Hillary Clinton would say, "it takes a village" to make sure that our children have enough support and love.

I don't agree with his justification for selling drugs, but there is definitely something wrong with our society when a lot of young people feel that the only way to "pay rent when the rent's due" is by selling drugs. No young child should ever feel that way and its our failure. I know there are some who will talk about personal responsibility--and I agree that we are all responsible for ourselves--but when young Americans no longer have the ability to dream of a promising future, we are failing miserably.

Not sure if it's kosher to post 2Pac on a political website, but here I go anyway:

American Liberalism

2007-03-11T19:06:00.000-07:00

It's pretty well known that self-described conservatives outnumber self-described liberals. But, as Kevin Drum notes,

Harris has been tracking liberal vs. conservative ID for several decades, and the numbers have been pretty rock solid. Ronald Reagan made conservatism slightly more popular and Clinton made it slightly less, but the changes have been modest and today we're in almost precisely the same spot as we were in 1976. What's more, the fact that this supposedly conservative country continues to favor operational liberalism hasn't changed much either. Apparently we just don't like to admit it.

I think this is important to remember and is part of the Republican overreach. We saw this with the Social Security scare. We are seeing the appreciation of liberal ideas in many states that are demanding the federal government do more to provide insurance for all children. Republicans tried to cram their conservative agenda and Americans don't like it. That's not to say that Iraq hasn't been a catalyst, but that is a symptom of the failures of conservative governance.

I consider myself a moderate because I think a deep skepticism about getting government involved in our lives is healthy. But I think there are real reasons why Americans overwhelmingly support some bedrock liberal policies: Social security, public education, medicare/medicaid, etc. We like things that work and make the country better. It just so happens that many liberal policies work and make the country better.

Hagel Announces Press Conference On Monday

2007-03-07T14:46:00.000-08:00

Steve Clemons spreads the word.

Is Hagel Jumping In?

2007-03-07T08:29:00.000-08:00

It looks like he is getting close:

Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel has not announced whether he will run for president in 2008. But his decision to tell two labor groups that he wants to participate in their upcoming presidential "cattle calls" might be showing his hand, according to the firefighter and construction groups which are slated to hear from the Nebraska senator in Washington, D.C. over the next three weeks.

"It was made absolutely clear to him that he was coming to speak at a forum where all the major presidential candidates were invited to speak," said Jeff Zack, a spokesman for the International Association of Fire Fighters, regarding Hagel's decision to speak to the firefighters in Washington, D.C. on March 14.

I've mentioned before, this could be a problem for the top three Dems. Hagel has one of the most extreme conservative voting records in Congress but comes across as a moderate. The GOP would be foolish to ignore him because he disagrees with the administrations current war strategy. After all, that would mean that the GOP supports: lack of body armor for the soldiers, extended and extra tours for the soldiers, no clear political strategy or even exit strategy.

Hagel is the one Republican I fear in this race. However, he is one of the few Republicans that doesn't come across as purely ambitious or as someone who would sink as low as the other top GOPers already have. Yeah, I'm scared of him, but I'd like a good fight over the issues. I think we'll get that most with Hagel.

What I Like About Obama

2007-03-05T17:49:00.000-08:00

I interrupt my Obama bashing to note the postives I find in his candidacy. He constantly emphasizes that government shouldn't be the answer to all of our problems, but neither should it be unfair. Our govenment is of the people and should be for the people. Responsible government can be a powerful force for good. That belief is what drove me to drop the charade that I am not a Democrat. Perhaps I take for granted that sentiment and its relation to the Democratic Party, but if that isn't something that differentiates the Democratic Party then it's great the we have someone like Obama championing that idea.

Second, in his latest book he talks about the importance of empathy. I think that's important too. My political philosophy is very much aligned with that of John Rawls' updated "Theory of Justice" and the whole "veil of ignorance" concept. Not only does this apply to social/economic situations, but it also applies to the beliefs of different people. I have strong views that may not be shared by everyone and its important to approach problems with others' views in mind. I don't mind partisan views and debates, but its unfortunate if after strong passionate debates we cannot remain cordial or even friends with our opponents. If this seems like a novel idea, then we need to have Barack Obama running and championing this common sense idea.

Third, at the danger of having a Joe Biden moment, I think it is great that a black man can be on the verge of the presidency. Even if he doesn't win, he's proof that a person of color can make it on any level. Growing up as a minority myself, I was told that I wasn't smart enough or good enough. Unfortunately, there wasn't always prominent contemporary heroes to look up to beyond my parents in which to challenge the negative stereotypes. Having Barack Obama, along with Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton in the top five in the Democratic running is something I find extremely inspiring because it gives the finger to old stereotypes.

Finally, though I don't think hope in and of itself will solve problems, its nice to believe in something. These days it is way to easy to get disheartened or frustrated and a little hope isn't such a bad thing.

I will be critiquing Obama down the road--after all, I do support another candidate--but that shouldn't be taken as a lack of respect and admiration. Nor should it ever diminish the postive aspects he brings to this race.

The Evangelical Choice

2007-03-01T09:28:00.000-08:00

Rudy Giuliani is pro-choice and in favor of same-sex unions, though, it seems, not same-sex marriage--definitely not a cultural conservative. But he also is also close to Grover Norquist on economic matters. A "you're on your own" type.

I'm interested to see where the evangelical voters stand on Giuliani--there are hints many are starting to warm up to him. I can understand and sympathize with people who are not comfortable voting for for a pro-choice candidate or a candidate in favor of same-sex institutions. I can somewhat understand them voting for an anti-choice, anti-gay candidate even though that candidate gives the shaft to people lower on the economic ladder.

But what of a candidate that is the worst of both worlds? I'd be very interested to see the justifications of those who would support the "socially liberal", economically conservative Giuliani over a "socially liberal" and economically progressive Democrat. I'm interested, not for any "gotcha" reasons, but I'd like to understand the philosophical arguments--political philosophy has been a hobby of mine for years. Ralph Reed tried to argue this at one point, but he has no credibility and his argument was pretty lame.

Why I Can't Get Into Obama

2007-02-28T16:02:00.000-08:00

Obama is making the claim that we need to get the cynicism out of politics. That we need to get away from the negatives of politics. I've said before that I've heard scores of politicians speak and they all pretty much say that and it's a pretty meaningless statement, or "cheap rhetoric" if you will. But I think this article from the Washington Post dramatically emphasizes this. Sam Fox, who donated a lot of money to the shrill GOP group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, was asked by John Kerry how he felt about the politics personal destruction. According to the Post:

Fox replied that he was "very concerned" that politics have become too "mean and destructive," especially with the participation of independent "527" groups such as Swift Boat Veterans.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see Obama saying anything novel or exciting here. And don't even get me started on his talk about "hope". I grew up close to poverty and people struggling. They don't need any more hope, they need a fair shake. I don't have to be convinced to vote for him in a general elect because he's clearly head and shoulders above the GOP candidates. But please. Give me something to be excited about.

(I should note that I'm overworked and having some experimental problems. I had to rant.)

Barack Obama's Name Problem

2007-02-28T11:09:00.000-08:00

No, I'm not talking about the absurdity of his middle name being a factor or certain rhyming of his last name--after all, if Bush and the GOP already forgot about that person.

The problem I see with Obama's name is that his first and last name initials are "B" and "O". Or, together, "BO". I've seen many bloggers use initials to refer to candidates and I have a hard time imaginining people being able to say, "I support BO!" I find the exclamation point to be the real killer. I mean, who can really be that excited about "BO".

OK, I'll admit that's silly. But it's no worse than the other stupid references to his name being a problem. Can I get a guest appearance on CNN or Fox to push this argument? Other people have spent a lot of time pushing other stupid name games. Why can't I?

(Back to work)

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

2007-02-27T22:08:00.000-08:00

I know I say I'm passionate about many things, but PTSD is something that is very personal to me. I won't share my personal experiences with people who have PTSD here, but I was glad to see that PTSD is being highlighted at the blog of Wes Clark's PAC, Securing America. The is post is worth a read:

[N]early 150,000 [veterans] have filed disability claims; over 100,000 of which have been granted, with another 30,000+ claims pending review. It is estimated that between 500 and 1,000 OEF/OIF vets are already homeless. Many have multiple deployments under their belts. For now, at least 38,000 returning troops carry invisible marks on their souls of one degree or another and are being treated by the Veterans Administration for psychological injuries once labeled nostalgia, shell shock or combat fatigue. Today we call it post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD.

The Hagel Effect

2007-02-27T20:49:00.000-08:00

I don't puch much stock in "electability" arguments for chosing candidates in a primary. I won't make an electability argument about any of the candidates currently in the running. At this point, I don't see any of the top four or five Dems in the field--Clark, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson--losing to any of the Republicans currently in the field. (I include Clark because he hasn't said he isn't going to run and there is still some time. Also, he's my top choice.) I say that in all seriousness. McCain went from "straight-talk express" (I never bought it) to "say anything depending on the audience". The real Rudy Giuliani won't be as popular as the mythical 9/11 "Mayor" is--just ask New Yorkers. I don't think the others really stand a chance with moderates.

That said, I think they dynamic changes a lot if Chuck Hagel throws his hat in the ring. When it comes to foreign policy, Hagel is everything that the "straight-talk express" isn't. Namely, a straight talker. He's probably one of the most conservative members of Congress (voting AGAINST the minimum wage increase!), but he's not portrayed as extreme as, say, a Brownback. A Hagel presidency will probably see Roe overturned by his supreme court pick as well as a host of other very important principles of American jurisprudence. But you won't likely hear much about that. Instead, you'll hear about his domestic "moderation" (a lie) and his respect in foreign policy circles. (Even I respect what he says.)

If Hagel is in the race, the Democratic nominee will be someone perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a moderate domestically and a strong national security candidate. That does not bode well for the current top three. I think Edwards and Obama would be particularly crippled by a Hagel run. They may say the right things and pursue the right policies (which I think they will), but to many you'd be taking a risk with them. To a lesser extent, Clinton is succeptible. I think Clinton is a contender no matter what and has a great campaign team, but will have a tough time with Hagel.

The Dems who will most easily be able to fend off a Hagel challenge on foreign policy credentials are Clark, Richardson and Biden. Listening to Hagel talk now is like listening to Clark from three years ago. (In fact, a lot of the FP establishment is starting to repeat Clark's advice.) Clark has already won a war and is well respected internationally--which other candidates are invited to speak at middle east economic development conferences or testify at the Hague? Similarly, Richardson has been ahead of the curve as well and is very much respected internationally. He's called to negotiate for prisoner release and has dealt with N. Korea in nuclear negotiations. He's ready to go. Biden can go toe-to-toe with Hagel and has always been a step ahead of Hagel in realizing the dangerousness of the Bush administration.

I prefer Hagel as the GOP nominee because I think he may be less sleazy than the other GOP candidates on the campaign trail. However, that will make it much tougher for any Democrat to win. I do think Dems can win, but we'd have a much easier time if Clark or Richardson were the nominee--and I'd like to be lazy this time.

I have to admit that I also find Clark and Richardson to be the candidates with the most pertinent experience and the most qualified.

Stop The War With Iran

2007-02-24T17:18:00.000-08:00

Wes Clark has been calling for dialogue with Iran for quite some time--long before it became en vogue to do so. Now it's becoming the Democratic consensus. Wes Clark has been the leader on the Democratic side of the foreign policy debate and specifically the middle east.

I hope he gets in the race. He probably doesn't have the tabloid appeal of Obama, Clinton or Edwards, but when it comes to the meat of policy he's been way ahead of everyone. Even if he doesn't win the nomination, perhaps we can talk about more than just hope. Because the problems this country and world face require more than just feeling good, they require answers.

Why Is Hillary The Only Ambitious Candidate?

2007-02-24T14:40:00.000-08:00

OK, anyone running for president is ambitious. That goes for Edwards, Obama, Richardson and even my candidate of choice, Wes Clark. There is nothing wrong with a little ambition. I think all the Dem contenders, even the lower tier believe they can change the course our country is headed in. But at the same time, you have to be really naive to think that any one of them lacks ambition.

I've been astounded of late by the Clinton bashing from the left. Whether it's the not so subtle inuendo from the Obama campaign, or bloggers constantly talking about, say, Hillary being one of the "most single-mindedly ambitious politicians". I'll grant that she has some ambition, but is she really single-mindedly ambitious compared to the others? (I won't even discuss the GOP since McCain's been running for president all of my adult life...)

Hillary Clinton has spent nearly all of her adult life fighting for child welfare and women's rights, amongst other things. She did so taking a back seat to her husband--who she got involved with before he was a heavy hitter in politics. I suppose it's possible that someone would hedge their bet that a young law student would eventually become president and help propel her to the presidency some thirty years later. Possible, but unlikely. And pretty stupid, if you ask me.

During Bill Clinton's rise Hillary stood aside. For someone with as much ambition as she is credited with, that seems more than a little odd. She never wavered in her commitment to children and women. Many of the things she did have never really been heavily publicized. If she were so ambitious, why would she have continued to do so much for so little recognition?

To me, the evidence isn't all that great that Hillary is one of the "most single-mindedly ambitious politicians". Does she have ambition? Sure. But what about Senators who decide to run for president in their first term with no other federal experience. To me, that seems more ambitious than someone who's dedicated an entire life to helping the most vulnerable citizens: children. I think it's unfortunate and unfair that Hillary Clinton gets all the scorn while others who, in my opinion, seem to be much more politically motivated than her get off completely. I don't understand this double standard and am shamed by Democrats who continue to push right-wing talking points about Hillary Clinton.

The Anti-Poverty Candidate

2007-02-20T23:56:00.000-08:00

People who know me intimately know that I'm pretty passionate about ending poverty. I'll get teary-eyed when I spit out sad statistics, curse efforts that increase poverty, curse when common sense solutions are ignored, and ask most politicians I meet pointed questions on poverty. It occassionally makes me callous to other people's problems, sometimes even my own. Given that, one would imagine that I'd run to sign up for John Edwards campaign. But I didn't. And I won't.

I am glad that Edwards talks a lot about poverty. To me its a serious moral and practical problem and it should be discussed. I was excited when Edwards started a poverty center in North Carolina--a truly noble goal. Unfortunately, I never noticed anything in Edwards's Senate career that showed the same level of concern for anti-poverty measures as he's pushed in his presidential campaigns. What's worse is looking at the events calendar on the UNC Poverty Center website. Perhaps there are events missing, but the last event noted on the website took place November 9, 2006. That's three and a half months ago! The last press on the website was from October 11, 2006--over four months ago.

I don't mean to question the people at the center, but this, along with his lack of effort in the senate on these measures, makes me question the real level of commitment that Edwards has when it comes to poverty. What's more, I don't get a feeling from listening to Edwards talk about poverty that he truly understands the situation or the solutions. I don't care that he's wealthy because wealthy people can understand the burdens of poverty as well as the solutions. FDR wasn't exactly poor, but he set up Social Security which dramatically decreased poverty amongst elderly Americans. A truly heroic feat.

I've never met or talked to Edwards so he may very well possess a deep understanding of what it takes to combat poverty. But I have yet to see that in anything he has said or has done.

But I have met Wes Clark. And, yes, I asked him one of my impassioned and pointed questions on poverty. What really surprised me was that he skipped the talk about what poverty is like--sparing me details that I'm quite aware of--and jumped right into the meat of possible solutions. I'm not one to be overly impressed with famous politicians--after all, I am a couple minute walk from more than one Nobel Laureate--but I was struck by his candor and his depth of knowledge on practical solutions. We talked about community and neighborhood based financial planning programs, microcredit, fair trade policy and national cultural impediments. A far cry from "we can do better". That he was willing to discuss some of the hurdles in addressing this issue demonstrated that he knows what he's talking about.

I won't enumerate or elaborate the solutions discussed right now--I'll save that for after he announces--but I just want to mention that as a person who cares very deeply about reducing poverty, Wes Clark is my clear choice as the anti-poverty candidate. Not platitudes, but practical solutions. Not just hope, but tangible solutions.

I know he most likely won't read this, but if so, I hope he runs because I want a real anti-poverty candidate. I'm sick of slogans and gimmicks. And, frankly, I've been hoping for a long time and that doesn't cut it either.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

2007-02-18T09:38:00.000-08:00

I know Wes Clark hasn't officially jumped in the Democratic primary, but every time I see him in the news he's doing something interesting. This time he's speaking at an economic forum in Saudi Arabia:

Her Majesty Queen Rania Al-Abdullah of Jordan will deliver a special keynote address at the conclusion of the opening day, Sunday 25th February. Plenary Speakers will include: HRH Prince Turki Al Faisal, H.E. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Prime Minister of Turkey; The Hon Dato� Sri Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak, Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia; H.E. Lech Walesa, former President of Poland; H.E. Benazir Bhutto, former Prime Minister of Pakistan; The Rt. Hon. Jean Chretien, former Prime Minister of Canada; Minister Liu Jiangfeng from China; General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO; Mr Peder Wallenberg, Founder of Carpe Vitam and Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, UK Chair of the Saudi-British Business Council.

The great thing about Clark is not having to subscribe to hope based politics. He has already done and continues to do what needs to be done to make our country secure and to help bring more economic security in other countries--this is his second such event in the last few months.

Much Ado About Jack (Bauer)

2007-02-16T17:57:00.000-08:00

I recently started watching "24". It was $18 for season one and the first episodes of the latest seasons were engaging. I won't defend the quality of the show, but I find the latest "liberal" attacks on the show to be astonishing and absurd. It's a TV show and the military shouldn't scape goat a TV show!

If troops are getting their advice from a TV show, then there is some serious problems in leadership that are much more disturbing than anything on the show. Troop behavior is the responsibility of the commanders. When will the buck stop with the leadership?

Shame on liberals for letting a military leader scapegoat a TV show! It's a TV show, not a military guidlines book!