Elash thinks...

America needs to get fit or go broke

2009-08-15T12:11:00.002-04:00

I write this post as I prepare to head to the high school track for a jog. I'm an avid jogger. Moreover, I'm religious about exercise (perhaps the only thing I'm actually religious about). I've reached a point in my life where I'm more fit than I've ever been. Whatever I'm doing day-to-day, exercise has to be part of my routine. It's a must. But this isn't how it's always been.

This post was stimulated by an article in the New York Times about taxing people more for being overweight. With the health care reform debate all over the news, perhaps one of the most important--but oft-overlooked--factors is prevention. Health care costs are rising exponentially, and will continue to do so, threatening our economy and crushing the middle class (which is why reform is essential). Yet "reform" is really about reforming the insurance industry. Rising costs are due to people becoming sicker. Another recent article in the Huffington Post reported that we spend $2.1 trillion a year on medical care, 95 percent of which treating diseases already occurring, 75 percent of which are largely preventable (diabetes, heart disease, obesity).

If we are talking about serious reform, and if we want the whole country in on the game, we've got to start having conversations about becoming a healthier population. Americans are notorious consumers. We don't just eat, we overeat. We don't just drink, we binge. Americans love excess. And yet it's killing us.

The Times article reports that people over 50 weigh 20 lbs more today than they did in the 1970s. People are eating more and exercising less. This has a lot to do with people's daily routines. With work and childcare, exercise is difficult to pencil-in. And with the economy in recession, folks are forced to live on the cheap. Fruits and vegetables happen to be more expensive than snacks, soda, and fast food. It's a painful reality.

And yet, the logic is sound. In an insurance system, you pay more for risky behavior. If you get in a car accident, your insurance goes up. The assumption is you might be a reckless driver, and higher insurance acts as a deterrent. Shouldn't it be the same for health insurance? If you purposefully make yourself unhealthy, by smoking or eating poorly (and yes, they are similar) shouldn't you pay more?

Someday I'd like to write a book called How to Live a Happy Life. Now, I'm not claiming to be an expert on health or wellness, but I feel healthy. I feel fit. And I don't get sick often. Making exercise and fitness an integral part of your life, I would recommend, is absolutely essential.

As I said at the start, I haven't always been fit. I used to weigh over 200 lbs in high school (now I hover around 188). I was never an active kid. Finally, because I felt left-out, I joined the track team in my sophomore year. I can remember the first day of practice. We did a 3/4 mile warm-up. I can remember how painful it was for me. My head was pounding by the end. It was awful. Everyday after that I told myself I couldn't keep it up. I'd think, "Tomorrow I'm going to quit." But remarkably I didn't.

That was it. Since then I've been hooked. Today I'm very fit, but it's taken me a long time and a lot of persistence to get to where I am.

Whenever I talk to friends who are unhappy with their weight or bodies, and they tell me "I want to lose weight," my response is only ever, "You can." Yes genetics are involved, but exercise is more than about physical appearance. It's also about improving your cardiovascular system and making yourself stronger. If you jog or bike regularly, your heart will be so much healthier.

But it also seems to me there are some folks who go to the gym and waste time. If you're serious about becoming healthy--and I think becoming healthy requires both diet and exercise--then working out should be difficult. I still go jogging and have to push myself. It's important you become your own coach. When you're running and you begin to lag, you need to keep yourself going. It has to be a challenge. Do one more lap. Sprint the last straight-away. If you go to the gym and do the same thing everyday at the same speed, you might not be helping yourself. You've got to sweat. And sometimes, It's got to hurt. It's a total cliche, but it's absolutely true: no pain, no gain.

Practical considerations matter, of course. Physical impairments like knee problems etc. It's important that you're conscious of those things and that you don't make them worse. But there are ways to still remain healthy, like doing a lower impact exercise like biking or the elliptical.

So I think I've ranted too much here already. My main point is this: if you want to lose weight and get healthy, you can. But you have to be serious. Pay attention to what you eat. Healthy food and unhealthy food are easy to recognize. And exercise. I've reached a point where if I don't work out, maybe for a few days, I get depressed. My body starts thinking, "What's wrong? This isn't normal." Working out absolutely has to be part of my daily routine. But you can only reach that point if you're persistent. It will take time (as it did for me) and that depends on the individual.

If you exercise more, the improvements will come. Your self-image will improve, you will have more energy, you'll be sick less, you'll never get depressed, and you'll be an overall more productive individual.

In the end, easier said than done. Again, we don't have a culture in the United States that encourages being healthy. There are all kinds of obstacles. But if we don't do something, if we don't have these kinds of conversations, as harsh as the topics may seem, then we'll continue to become less healthy. We can get coverage for the 46 million uninsured, but the system will never improve and never become less expensive if folks don't start taking responsibility for themselves.

Watch Carlos Watson

2009-08-14T02:00:00.008-04:00

I'm officially a fan of Carlos Watson. I mentioned him in my last post about the town hall protesters. His comments, as I said, were "shrewd and accurate." Clearly, Carlos is a thinker, and I like thinkers. He also seems to be a little bit of a provocateur, which is even cooler. I love people who love controversy (exactly why I love Bill Maher).

Watson is the anchor of MSNBC Live at 11 AM Monday through Friday. He also appears on Morning Joe a few mornings a week (which I'll tout as the best morning show on cable news). In addition, as I recently discovered, he created The Stimulist (thestimulist.com).

Described by Watson, The Stimulist is as "original take on the daily news: a tasty mix of rising stars, provocative ideas, and inspiring stories." It's billed as "The Optimist's Daily Brief." I love it! I think Watson is one to watch. And if he keeps offering insightful nuggets like his recent N-word remarks, then consider me a lifetime subscriber.

Not to mention he's a sharp dresser.

They're as mad as hell...

2009-08-14T00:55:00.013-04:00

Today I watched a live stream from a town hall meeting held by Senator Arlen Specter. Specter is a trooper. He's 79, and he's held four town halls in the past four days. These town halls are infamous for the angry citizens in attendance. They're boisterous, vocal, and holler out-of-turn. And they're just PISSED about proposed health care reform.

Or are they...

Let me say that I don't believe the "mobs" as they're called are all being rounded-up and sent out by right-wing organizations funded by lobbyists and former Bushies (though many are). A lot of them are actually springing up from the grassroots.

But what is it exactly that they're angry at? Listening to these town halls, it's clear folks do not understand what health care reform actually entails. Senators and members of congress attempt to explain and dispel rumors, but many people won't listen. They whip "LIAR" right back into their representatives faces. Many members (mostly Dems) aren't holding town halls. Some have degenerated into violence. Some have received death threats.

Some (and by some I mean very few) have speculated on where this anger is coming from. Some, of it surely, is pure racism. I am not saying that opposing health care means you are a racist, but listening to folks spew about socialism, "their America" slipping away, it's clear there's something amiss. They aren't just concerned about health reform. There's a contingent of the population that feels threatened, if not under siege. Many are older. Many of them are white. It just so happens we just recently elected an African American to the highest office in the land. And his name isn't 'Colin Powell' or even 'Michael Steele' ...it's Barack Hussein Obama.

Carlos Watson recently mused on MSNBC that "socialism" in some cases might be code for the N-word. And while Carlos also doesn't intend to label all those opposed to health care reform as racists, his point is shrewd and accurate. But it's obvious the post-racial society we were dreaming of during the '08 election is far from a reality. Racial animus exists. Right-wingers aren't helping by ginning up fear about what Obama's government is planning for our future.

The anger and venom at these town halls is like nothing I've ever seen. A woman at one of Specter's town halls said "You've awoken the sleeping giant." I wonder what it will do next..

For some context, here are Carlos Watson's comments on MSNBC:

Latest Potter flick might be best so far

2009-08-13T23:51:00.005-04:00

Lately it seems impossible to get my friends to go out to a movie. I suppose at our age, most us of us prefer to go to the bar (admittedly, a trip to the bar is hard to turn down). And it's understandable. Movies aren't really social activities. And they're expensive. A trip to the movies can run you maybe 15 to 20 bucks after popcorn, candy, slushee etc. (I happen to love slushees).

That aside, it really depends on the movie. Some movies are more like "events." It wasn't hard to convince ANYONE to see The Dark Knight last summer. It's rare you meet a person now who hasn't (and if you do, you can't help feeling sorry for whomever that poor sap might be).

The Harry Potter movies always seem to be just those kinds of "event" movies. But just my luck! Once again, I miss the boat. By the time I find time or inclination to go out and see it, nobody wants to or everyone already has. When I was asked by a coworker if I wanted to join some friends for a movie, I said HP was probably the only thing out I wanted to see. This particular person responded by saying it was "boring" and that a friend, who was an avid fan, thought it was the worst so far. I'd heard similar grumblings of displeasure--such things only heighten my interest.

Well, I'm happy to report, now having finally seen the movie, it is in fact NOT boring and probably the best film so far.

I think the problem with the Potter movies, which is often pointed out by critics, is that it seems the filmmakers struggle to make a film to please casual moviegoers as well as avid fans of the books. The first two films were pretty straightforward page-to-screen adaptations. Just a visual representation of the books--no interpretation necessary. Efficient is a good word for them. And they were good. Very fun and great-looking. But it was easy to see that there was potential with these movies that wasn't being tapped.

Half-Blood Prince is perhaps the most organic of all the movies. It feels like a film in its own right, and less like a "version" of something else. It's also the most mature, dark, and melancholy of all the films. It's understandable why some would find it dull. But I actually enjoyed every second. The visuals are great. And despite the gloom and doom, it's occasionally very funny, especially in scenes featuring the principal trio.

The cast is brilliant as usual. The three young leads have clearly grown into their roles and are better than ever. They're refreshing to watch. And the roster of British talent continues to grow. The latest addition is the great Jim Broadbent as Slughorn. His performance is one of the best things about the movie.

A note on Michael Gambon as Dumbledore: I think there have been mixed feelings ever since the passing of Richard Harris, but Gambon does an excellent job. Some critics find his portrayal too aloof, his connection to Potter lacking. But I think it's right. Gambon is admittedly less warm, and more mysterious than Richard Harris. But given Dumbledore's fate, I think it's appropriate.

The Potter films, like the books, seem to only get better. As times goes by, and the characters grow and mature, so do the stories. As the subject matter becomes darker, more complex, it becomes that much more interesting.

Obama’s FDR moment: time for a new New Deal?

2008-12-13T15:03:00.001-05:00

Seventy-six years ago, Franklin Roosevelt struck a New Deal with America. His first term as president ushered in a new era of sweeping progressive reform. He restructured the country’s financial systems and established audacious programs like Social Security to lift America out of the Great Depression. His ideological opponents equated him with Marx and Lenin. But the country embraced Roosevelt and his agenda. They still do.

Today the United States find itself once again in the midst of economic turmoil. Financial markets are crashing. Unemployment is rising. Americans are losing their homes and their healthcare. They can’t pay the bills, pay for food, or fill up the gas tank. Everyone is feeling the squeeze. Economic security seems nonexistent. The people want action.

The election of Barack Obama seems to signal that the country is desperate for change. The hands-off, laissez-faire attitudes of the past just won’t cut it. Americans want relief, not someone telling them tough it out—better to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Obama is not unlike Franklin Roosevelt in what he proposes to address the crisis. In fact, the president-elect and his staff are currently studying-up on FDR’s first hundred days. America might just be headed for another new era of progressive reform. Obama can strike a new New Deal.

The change would be wholly welcome.

With the country facing such peril, and with such possibility at our fingertips, there is an opportunity to go even further than Roosevelt was able. Not just to change habits, but change ideas. And that’s exactly what FDR wanted.

Even in the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt was adept enough to recognize that the country was changing. The economy was changing. In a speech to Congress in 1944, FDR acknowledged America’s growth since its founding “under the protection of certain inalienable rights” like free speech, press, and worship. “They were our rights to life and liberty.” But with the advent of industrialization, “these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness,” he pressed.

Ultimately Roosevelt asserted, “true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.” By what means do we have the mere ability to exercise political freedom in absence of economic standing? The answer is none. “Necessitous men are not free men,” the president quoted.

Roosevelt, though, was perhaps to presumptuous in declaring “these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident.” He assumed the country had embraced these ideas, and might go so far as to codify them as a second Bill of Rights, “under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all - regardless of station, race, or creed.” He was mistaken. A second bill never materialized. FDR’s speech has largely been forgotten.

What is truly striking is how prescient FDR’s words are today. Once again the country is changing. The economy is changing. Indeed, the world is changing. The old ways of doing things won’t suffice. Perhaps it’s worth taking a second look at FDR’s second Bill of Rights.

Barack Obama is currently riding a wave of support on the heals of his landslide electoral victory in the presidential election. Polls suggest overwhelming confidence in the president-elect to deal with the economic crisis. Even in 2004, with the country sharply polarized, George W. Bush claimed political capital from his narrow re-election victory that he intended to spend. Obama has an even more legitimate claim, and even greater spending power.

Indeed, it is high time the country’s leadership acknowledged what FDR found so painfully obvious. In times of change and uncertainty, Americans have an irrefutable right to demand economic security. The free-market capitalist mentality of the United States has long prevented us from declaring any fundamental economic rights. It’s time we did.

Obama can do it. Like Roosevelt, he’ll be called a socialist and a Marxist. Indeed, he already has. The same opponents who level attacks against the new president-elect espouse the same ideology as those who attacked FDR. New Deal policies were considered too audacious—many free-market thinkers still condemn the establishment of the welfare state. FDR’s public works programs put millions back to work. Social Security gave seniors the ability to retire with dignity. Roosevelt would be re-elected by landslide margins three times. Who did the people trust?

It rights FDR specifically referred were, fundamentally, the right to a “remunerative job,” the right to provide for a family, the right to a “decent home,” “decent medical care,” and a “good education.” Should we, as Americans, as citizens of the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth, be able to take those things for granted? The answer is an unequivocal yes. These are things most of take for granted, but things that are also denied millions of Americans. It’s an outrage.

It would be silly to think of those things as anything but rights. But the fundamental principle still must be recognized: economic rights and political rights are inextricable. Period. The issue is both normative and practical. We can no longer cling to outdated notions, asserting that alleviating poverty is a matter of personal responsibility. We can no longer claim that economic mobility is a guarantee. We can no longer deny that some are simply denied mobility by no fault of their own.

Obama can do it. Obama should do it.

Cass Sunstein provides explicit retorts to the inevitable arguments against a second bill in his book The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever (2006). Inevitably there will be those who claim, “the second bill would destroy people’s incentive” and “give citizens an unhealthy and even destructive sense of entitlement.” The U.S. was founded on the notion of self-reliance, and any system of welfare is antithetical to that very fundamental principle. But Sunstein points out that Roosevelt was well aware of this. The bill does not guarantee welfare rights, merely rights to opportunity. Roosevelt wanted protection of these rights “based fundamentally on free enterprise.”

It obvious that the rights in the second bill might be viewed as foreign with respect to the traditional conception of rights, as Sunstein points out. Many would point out that the original Bill of Rights is comprised of “negative rights,” or protections from government intrusion, while the second includes “positive rights,” or guarantees of government help. Sunstein negates the distinction, pointing out that the rights in the original bill “are rights to government help too.” Is there any doubt that one’s freedom of speech is not enabled by access to public space, which is maintained and policed by government?

Still, there are those who conceive of rights in an entirely different way. Perhaps they view the original bill as including rights conferred by God. Indeed, the text of our founding documents references a “creator.” Sunstein’s response here is slight, though it is sufficient given that these objections are as arbitrary as one’s assertion that the rights in the second bill as also natural or God-given.

Sunstein also quells concerns that a second bill might lead to a European-style “full-blown commitment to a welfare state,” the results of which, he suggests, “Roosevelt himself might abhor.” Implementing policies such as those suggested by the second could lead to massive over-regulation of markets, some fear, as has been seen abroad. Sunstein points out carefully that “the second bill specifies certain ends; it is agnostic about how to achieve them.”

Finally is the classic objection to redistributing wealth. Barack Obama was attacked heavily by his opponent toward the end of the campaign for wanting to “spread the wealth around.” His tax policies were labeled “redistributive” and socialistic. Sunstein points out the second bill means to advance liberty—by way of ensuring economic freedom—not equality. Roosevelt himself wanted the private economy to secure resources. But he did indeed seek to take from those with means to provide for those who are “in desperate need.” Sunstein asserts that government enables all wealth—even of the wealth. But Susnstein also ensures the Roosevelt did not mean to establish a “tyrannical” government bureaucracy. Wherever possible, free markets solutions would be preferred, and regulation should not be feared.

Sunstein’s responses are clearly answer the concerns of those who would object to the underlying ideals of a second Bill of Rights. The answers, inevitably, will be insufficient for some. But attempts at progress will always face dissenters.

What should not be ignored is that both Roosevelt and Obama believe in the free market. Obama himself has stated frequently that nobody expects government to solve all their problems—nor do the people expect it. What the two men agree on is that government has a role, and it can be an effective one. There are some things the free market cannot, and will not provide. Government can step in, in these instances.

Today we find ourselves at a point in history much like that in the 1930s. FDR and Obama both recognize it. Obama has an opportunity to change the country, and beyond. He has an opportunity to succeed, perhaps, where FDR did not. There is no doubt Obama will pursue audacious progressive policies that will be embraced, I expect, much like the ones from the New Deal. But he can do more. He can finally put to rest, or at least adequately marginalize—just as FDR’s second bill was marginalized—the failed ideas of the laissez faire crowd.

I stop short of suggesting a second Bill of Rights be adopted as part of the existing Constitution. I agree with Sunstein—one wonders how it could be enforced. FDR didn’t mean for it to be adopted in that way either. But the fundamental principles are sound. As sound as they were in 1944. Americans have more claim to certain economic rights than ever before. And Obama should use this moment in history to assert them. And he can.

Yes, he can.

How change happens: lessons for any movement

2008-12-13T14:59:00.002-05:00

“My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.” Gerald Ford said that in 1974 upon being sworn-in as president. The country had just endured the Watergate scandal. What’s remarkable is how salient his words are today.

For many Americans, the election of Barack Obama means the end of another nightmare: the presidency of George W. Bush. The outgoing chief executive currently polls less favorably than any president since polling began. The defeat of John McCain meant avoiding another four years of the same failed policies.

For many, there was a palpable sense of relief at 11 p.m. on November 4, when polls closed on the west coast. Obama had enough electoral votes to be declared president-elect. It was a moment some thought they would never see—one many had hoped for and nobody took for granted.

For gay Americans—myself included—the relief was overwhelming. There was much at stake in this election, for LGBTs in particular. Either we would have a president who could empathize with our community, or one more comfortable with pushing it further to the margins. That’s not to suggest Obama’s election means automatic equality, just like it doesn’t signal an end to racial discrimination. The road ahead is still a steep one, and there continue to be setbacks.

Just as Californians voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama for president—over 60 percent—they also narrowly passed Proposition 8—52 to 48 percent—denying same-sex marriage rights. Bans were also passed in Florida and Arizona by even larger margins. One step forward and three steps back, it seems.

Clearly there is still a ruling class in America, and their disposition is clear on the issue of marriage. But take a lesson from history. When the Supreme Court declared Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law unconstitutional in 1967, it was an affront to the values of most Americans. It’s a point same-sex marriage advocates press repeatedly. The courts exist to defend minorities from the tyranny of the majority. It’s a fundamental principle upon which the country was founded.

Obama’s election halts the Supreme Court’s rightward shift. For liberal activists, this issue was priority. Any new judicial appointment should be reliably liberal. Considering how the marriage issue is faring on the ballot, it’s more likely to come up in courts across the country—like it did here in Connecticut. Results may vary.

Still, there is no guarantee, despite a record more friendly to LGTBs, that Obama will be an ally to the community. During the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, both President Kennedy and President Johnson were sympathetic to the cause, though restrained in their actions and hesitant to intervene. Gay rights activists will simply have to forge ahead.

That lesson is timeless. As Dr. King wrote from his Birmingham jail cell, “Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability.” Yes, we can take Obama’s election as a signal of progress. He’s the first ethnic minority elected as head-of-state of any country in world history. It’s a testament to the spirit of America, a country that continues to reinvent itself, and surprise the world. But his election was never inevitable.

Obama repeatedly reminded supporters during the primary campaign of the unlikelihood of his candidacy. It was an appeal to keep working. He would talk about the uncertainty ahead, and the necessity of volunteers who never lose hope. Dr. King’s message was the same in his letter from the Birmingham jail. And it’s a lesson gay rights activists must cling to. Like those ‘60s activists, they will have to take their fight to the streets, to the courts, and all across the country.

Progress is only inevitable as long as there are people willing to work for it. They knew that in the ‘60s. We knew that throughout this election. Barack Obama declared in on election night, “It’s been a long time coming,” like the line from the old Sam Cooke song. But that night, Obama ended it with, “Change has come to America.”

As gay Americans, we can take solace that change will come. But we know we have to work for it. The road ahead is long and uncertain. But as long as hope is alive, work continues. And as long as work continues, change will happen.

Iraq P.M. says U.S. must go

2008-07-07T22:00:00.004-04:00

George W. Bush once said, when the Iraqis want us to go, we'll go. Actually, the exact quote is, "If they were to say leave, we would leave." He said that last year (thanks HuffPost).

Well, they're saying it.

According to the Times Online, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is calling for a U.S. timetable for withdrawal. President Bush has long opposed the idea, and continues to do so, as does John McCain. Currently there are 145,000 U.S. servicemen and women serving in Iraq.

The Times reports al-Maliki's boasting that he has "crushed terrorism" in the country. Now he wants timetables.

John McCain has been echoing Bush in calling Iraq the central front in the U.S. War on Terror. He insists upon staying for "as long as it takes" and that we will be victorious -- statements that conflict with other statements that troops will be home at the end of his first term (sounds like a timetable to me...). He routinely lambastes Obama and Democrats for calling for timetables for withdrawal, calling such policies naive and precipitous.

Bush has always insisted that we will follow advice from commanders on the ground. The midterm congressional elections in 2006 forced Bush to reevaluate his "stay the course" policy, so he introduced the "surge" strategy, putting General David Petraeus in charge of operations. The new strategy was supposed to expedite a reconciliation process for the Iraqi government, offering breathing room to reach benchmarks, after which troops would draw down.

As has been the case before, Bush and others shifted goal posts. Soon there was little talk of political reconciliation, and more discussion of decreasing levels of violence. So-called "victory" has never been defined explicitly.

Though violence is currently down (even Democrats acknowledge it) only about half the U.S. established benchmarks have been met. But McCain and Republicans insist the strategy is succeeding and the U.S. is winning. Obama continues to call for a timetable.

I appears al-Maliki shares the sentiment. And as far as I'm concerned, we should take his advice. I have always felt we should leave immediately. Hopefully this story gives the strongest Iraq withdrawal proponents some much needed fuel. I want to see Bush held to the fire. I want to see McCain held to account. I want to know why we should remain because I haven't heard a good excuse yet.

And just following Bush's words last year ("...we would leave."), I think we can take that as sign enough to begin draw down immediately. And I think we must.

Maliki's exact statements on withdrawal were given during a visit to UAE: “The current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to put a timetable on their withdrawal." Apparently, the Times reports, this stems from growing confidence of the Iraqi leadership. The U.S., as an occupying force, has strong influence. But friction exists. The Iraqi leadership prefers a Shia-dominant government, something the U.S. opposes. The U.S. also wants to eradicate Iranian influence. The Iraqi government presently has strong ties to the Iranians.

During his questioning of David Petraeus in the Senate this spring, Obama referred to Iran specifically, insisting that some Iranian influence is inevitable and questioned whether opposition to all influence is realistic.

Nouri al-Maliki's comments hint at future cooperation with Obama, the Times reports. I think we can expect close cooperation, especially if al-Maliki remains in favor of a timetable.

The Times reports al-Maliki and the Iraqi government's efforts to speed up reconciliations, such as agreements on long-term U.S. presence, which the Iraqi government and the Bush administration sometimes disagree on.

As a sign of defiance, and continuing stubbornness to "stay the course," the Times reports the Pentagon's response to al-Maliki's comments continued their insistance that timetables are "artificial" and that withdrawal will depend on "conditions on the ground." This is the same cryptic rhetoric we've heard before from Petraeus, Bush, and others.

Obama, I think we can expect, and as I said before, should be less stubborn, more willing to negotiate and conform to the wishes of al-Maliki -- which is not only appropriate, but exactly what we ought to be doing.

Now, I hardly expect a story like this to push Iraq back to center-stage, as I'd like it to be. Not this week, when McCain has introduced a new economic plan (really just a re-introduction of his old one) and the debate continues to focus on the economy. But hopefully we'll hear plenty from the netroots, liberal commentators and other progressive leaders (including Obama). Hopefully this story can give them fuel to renew calls for withdrawal (even John Murtha is highlighting decreases in violence).

The media of late seems to be purporting success in Iraq. Obama and Democrats must continue to resist even as they reconcile it's recession as a major issue.

My opinion remains the same: I thought we should have started withdrawing a year ago, even earlier. I still do. The sooner the better. And Obama is smart to focus on Afghanistan, insisting on its importance as the situation their continues to decline. He ought to be able to force McCain into a corner over his instance that Iraq as "central front." Also, recent polling suggests more than 60 percent of Americans favor withdrawal.

Good news for Obama.

Real progressive leadership

2008-07-07T12:43:00.005-04:00

After the FISA bill compromise, progressives should be worried. Americans in general should be worried, but they're more often distracted by fear. But there is hope.

The netroots and liberal bloggers raised hell over Barack Obama (the supposed progressive leader they've been waiting for) apparently shifting ground on the issue. The bloggers cover this story regularly, and despite support for Obama, they let him have it. And rightly so. There's a Facebook petition from MoveOn.org. Members of mybarackobama.com spoke out in near-unison. Obama noticed -- but he stood his ground.

Then there are the men and women of the U.S. Senate who are to blame for this slip-shod legislation that disrespects the rule of law. Despite this sorry excuse for a "compromise" and their pitiful excuses of "best we can do" shielding their politically-driven intentions, this whole unfortunate episode is a reflection of the sickening lap-dog loyalty of Republicans and the spinelessness that sometimes comes to define the Democratic leadership.

But their are some true-believers who aren't backing down. Some leaders in the U.S. Senate who are proving just how powerful one voice can sometimes be.

We need look no further than Christopher J. Dodd, the senior senator from Connecticut.

Dodd has written an op-ed in the Huffington Post laying out his reasons for opposing the FISA legislation. His reasoning is plain and painfully obvious. I have to grit my teeth when I think of Reid, Pelosi, even Obama saying "It's the best we can do." My ass.

Dodd's message is potent. But one must come to respect this man as a true progressive voice and leader in the U.S. Congress. One who is always reliable and principled. We need more like Dodd, and Russ Feingold, and Barbara Boxer.

Dodd's editorial details his efforts to oppose the bill at every turn and in every way his ranking and powers in the senate afford him. And one can only conclude his perseverance stems from a deep and abiding love of country, dedication to principle and rule of law. Love and dedication to our founders, our history, our Constitution, that all congresspeople should demonstrate each day they pass through the halls of congress, but that seem woefully absent.

And a firm belief that all leaders should share: security never justifies undermining the rule of law. Ever. Remember Benjamin Franklin...

I feel very strongly about this. I'm proud of leaders like Dodd and Feingold who refuse to cave under pressure and will stand their ground -- as lonely as their battles might be -- to oppose at all costs. To speak out as proud liberals, proud progressives, in an age where these long-marginalized voices are finally gaining ground.

I oppose the FISA compromise. I pray that Dodd and Feingold are successful.

Here is Dodd's HuffPost editorial in full:

That the United States Senate would even have to debate whether to uphold the rule of law is infuriating enough. But two weeks ago, the contrast in priorities became too much: as the Senate refused to address the tide of foreclosures impacting more than 8,000 people every day, it was poised and ready to provide immunity to giant corporations that may have broken the law.

So, I did what I felt I had to: I said no.

By blocking a vote on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the fight to stop retroactive immunity goes on -- for another week anyway. The Senate will take the bill up again this week as it returns from the July 4th recess.

Of course, such procedural jujitsu was merely the latest twist in a fight that has now spanned nearly a year. During that time, I have used every forum available to me -- from the Senate floor to the presidential campaign to town halls around the country -- to talk about the importance of the rule of law and why a seemingly obscure dispute between government and corporations in our legal system is critical to upholding it.

A brief overview: we learned after September 11, 2001 that giant telecom companies worked with this administration to compile Americans' private, domestic communications records into a database of enormous scale and scope. The Bush administration appears to have convinced those corporations to spy on Americans for five years, in secret and without a warrant.

That we know this happened is not because the government told us -- they say the matter is classified. And it is not because one of the telecoms told us. We may not have known any of this at all were it not for serious investigative journalists. And we wouldn't know how deep the problem really went without an Internet technician by the name of Mark Klein, a 22-year veteran of AT&T who one day at work found a switch that channeled Internet traffic culled from millions of living rooms, bedrooms, kitchens and offices across the nation to a secret room operated by the National Security Agency. Mr. Klein was old enough to remember when a law was passed to prevent this sort of unchecked spying operation from happening:

FISA -- a law written back in 1978 in the wake of Watergate that ensured the government had both the tools it needed to defend the country and a process in place for judicial review to put checks on executive authority.

Most agree that this law needs to be modernized, as it has been many times over the years. But this time, the president is asking Congress to do something much more: to shield the telecoms from any judicial review of their actions. He wants Congress to declare spying without a warrant both constitutional and necessary to defend this country.

It is neither.

That is why I have done everything I can to stop retroactive immunity from being included in the FISA bill. As written, this bill does not say, "Trust the American people." It does not say, "Trust the courts and judges and juries to come to just decisions" about what happened at the telecoms. Rather, retroactive immunity sends this message:

"Trust me" -- a message that comes straight from the mouth of President Bush. I would never take "trust me" for an answer, not even in the best of times. Not even from a president on Mount Rushmore.

Besides, what exactly is the basis for that trust? Retroactive immunity may be a disgrace in itself, but it is merely the latest link in a long chain of abuses when it comes to contempt for the rule of law -- from the Justice Department basing its work on political calculations, to the shame of Abu Ghraib, to the passage of the Military Commissions Act, which sanctioned torture. The list goes on and on.

To many around the world, that is what America has become. Where Normandy, the Marshall Plan, and the Nuremberg trials invoked the image of America for previous generations, those coming of age today will now think of Guantanamo, waterboarding, and torture. People now have a basis upon which to ask whether the president serves the law or the law serves the president.

Did the telecoms break the law? I don't know.

But I am sure that if we pass retroactive immunity we'll never know. A handful of favored corporations will remain unchallenged. Their arguments will never be heard in a court of law. The truth behind this unprecedented domestic spying will never see light. And the cases will be closed forever.

I'm under no illusion that we will be able to keep this bill from the president's desk forever; two weeks ago, I was disappointed that we could only muster 15 votes out of the necessary 41 to block consideration of FISA.

But every second we can continue to raise this issue and hold this Administration's feet to the fire for its contempt for the rule of law these last seven years is another opportunity to keep asking:

When we undermine the rule of law, do we make our nation more secure -- or less?

Over the next few days, that's the question we'll be asking. But I think we already know the answer.

Unity, sweet Unity

2008-06-26T20:40:00.004-04:00

Tomorrow, Hillary Clinton will make her first public appearance alongside Barack Obama now as an official surrogate of the Democratic nominee. And I can't wait! The location of the event is symbolic (though corny): Unity, New Hampshire. Important because this is where Hillary first beat Barack, in an upset after Iowa, and a state that really loves John McCain. And I suppose the goal is to get those women who delivered Hillary's upset to rally behind Obama so he can beat McCain, there.

Personally, I've missed Hillary since she's left the trail. It's hard watching someone who's featured constantly on the 24 hour news cycle suddenly disappear -- and really disappear. I'm also really excited about this (and I'm sure the Obama people know this) because it will absolutely dominate the news cycle. Whatever bad blood there may be between the one-time opponents, there is no question of either politician's ability to totally co-opt news coverage.

Let the love fest begin! It should be a great campaign.

The Nader/Barr Effect

2008-06-24T20:49:00.005-04:00

Think Republicans should be worried about the effect Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr and independent Ralph Nader will have this November?

If the brand new Los Angeles Time/Bloomberg poll is any indication, the answer is a resounding "yes!" And boy, does it bring a smile to my face!

Even without Barr and Nader factored in, Obama still trumps McCain, according to the poll. In a one-to-one match up, Obama is up by 12 points against McCain! But when Nader and Barr are included, Obama's margin for victory actually increases -- by 15 points!

I've been listening to the pundits recently reacting to another poll -- this one by Newsweek, which had Barack up by 15. Conservatives and Fox News commmentators dismissed the Newsweek poll, citing Gallup tracking polls which show a much tighter race (a steady 3 point lead by Obama). I even read one headline that asked, "Is Obama really up by 15 points?"

Well, hopefully, the new Times/Bloomberg will confirm their worst fears -- that in fact, yes, this country is fed up with Bush and Republicans alike. They're so fed up, so hungry for change, they'll even vote for the guy they might consider a little risky.

Hopefully the McCain camp are shaking in their boots. Especially since Obama leads by double digits even without the Nader/Barr factor.

Obama must filibuster the FISA bill

2008-06-23T22:31:00.008-04:00

Barack Obama's historic candidacy has been a godsend to one political group in particular -- the one to whose views I enthusiastically espouse: progressive Democrats.

You know, the group of Americans whose voice, up until now, rang loudest on the blogoshpere, from sites like Daily Kos, Think Progress, and The Huffington Post. It's no shock that all of these sites swung hard behind Obama during the primary contests. Obama truly offered hope -- as he does for so many -- to progressives longing for legitimacy after years of assault and marginalizing by conservatives in the media and elsewhere.

Well, Obama is risking that support.

I just posted on the new compromise FISA bill which gives telecom companies immunity on illegal government wiretapping. This one issue amidst so many examples of how the Bush Administration, in cahoots with the radical Republican congress -- and now an apparently wimpy Democratic congress -- assaulted the U.S. Constitution. All of these examples enraging civil libertarians and progressives who do not accept any excuses for sacrificing the precious rights and liberties of the American people in exchange for 'temporary security.'

Now, if Obama wants to continue to uphold the mantle of being a truly 'progressive' leader in the 21st century, he would demonstrate consistency with his message as he has delivered it since beginning his campaign and fighting -- tooth and nail -- AGAINST immunity. He would fight alongside other progressive senators like Dodd, Feingold, Boxer, and Ted Kennedy.

Obama desperately needs a 'leadership moment.' A moment Americans can point to and say, "Yes, at that moment Barack stood his ground, and showed real courage... and leadership." That moment that can reassure all those wary voters, still unwilling to throw their support behind this freshest of fresh faces, that yes, behind the rhetoric, behind the flashy and slick facade, he's a fighter and a leader.

Time to break with the pack. Obama must filibuster. Obama must take this fight to the floor and declare that immunity is NOT acceptable. He needs to take all those vibrant rhetorical skills he has and drive the point home with more force and vigor than any other voice in the senate.

Daily Kos, Media Matters, Huffington Post, Think Progress are all opposed to the FISA bill. I am too. This is about why we ever got behind this guy in the first place. This is why we originally thought, yes, this really is "Change we can believe in." Obama is the progressive leader we've been waiting for and he needs to take this moment and say, "No! This is about liberty and justice and I won't stand for it!"

He needs this moment. Badly. And Kos and the rest are watching and waiting -- waiting for that moment of ledaership and strength.

Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer might all be willing to cede this one to Bush. They might think this 'compromise' bill is fair and "the best we can do" but progressives are not convinced -- to say the least. But Barack doesn't have to cede. He must declare that there will be no immunity. For the sake of our liberty, our history, our Constitution -- for the sake of the cause of progressives and libertarians that these kind of sad compromises offend -- Barack must fight.

Barack, we've stood up for you. Now, please -- stand up for us.

Obama, House Dems should be ashamed...

2008-06-21T03:15:00.003-04:00

Today the House of Representatives voted to approve compromise legislation granting immunity to telecom companies that illegally spy on American citizens. The FISA bill was finally passed after months of negotiation between House Democrat Steney Hoyer of Maryland and Sen. Jay Rockefeller from West Virginia. Barack Obama has said he will support the measure.

So much for the Fourth Amendment.

Just as a refresher, that's the one that says American citizens are to be protected from unlawful searches and seizures. That means when the Bush administration approves a domestic spying program, in collusion with telecom companies that allow them to listen-in on phone conversations between anybody, anywhere, anytime, they're violating the United States Constitution.

Clear enough? It's right there. Black and white. Written down. But apparently, IT'S MEANINGLESS. The words of the founders don't mean SQUAT to the Bush Administration or cowardly Congressional Democrats, and now -- it saddens me to say it -- Barack Obama.

Now, don't get me wrong. Barack is my guy. All the way to the White House, baby. But this is really a disappointment. We listened for months during the Democratic primaries to candidates railing against the Bush Administration, and Obama in particular, talking about illegal wire taps and violations of civil liberties and constitutional rights.

But call it for what it is: pure politics. And worse than that, it's a total cave-in. A compromise to appease constituents of right-leaning Democrats before November.

The Democrats were elected in 2006 to change course. To stand their ground and fight the Bush Administration at every slippery turn. And this news makes me want to gag. Once again they demonstrate a lack of oversight, initiative, and spine.

This is where Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are absolutely right. If only they were younger, more persuasive, more charistmatic, they would have a wider audience. Kucinich is right when he quotes Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Obama is suppossed to be the progressive candidate. This cave-in is not a progressive one. And his statement of explanation is worthless. It's meaningless. So are Pelosi's statements. I mean come on. ANY BILL that the Bush Administration praises has to be wrong for America. What filth. To think that Obama and Pelosi and Reid and Hoyer are all on Bush's side makes me sick.

Why don't they just stage a public burning of the constitution. And while they're at it, throw in an American flag. As long as you're going to trash symbols of our cherished liberties and freedom...

No explanantion of "essential tools to fight terrorists" or "America existing in a post-9/11 world" just won't cut it. Ever. No way. I don't want to hear it. This is not what Americans are asking for. Our politicians are put in power to PROTECT AND DEFEND OUR LIBERTIES that are constitutionally granted. Not to debate them, curb them, temporarily suspend them when it's politically salient or when the pressure is on.

This, my friends, is madness.

Shame on you Barack. And you, Reid. And you, Pelosi. And especially you, Hoyer. Yesterday, all you did was a show COMPLETE lack of backbone.

Replacing the irrecplacable: filling Russert's shoes

2008-06-14T23:44:00.009-04:00

Like it or not, the loss of Tim Russert means someone else will have to fill that chair on Meet the Press. And those are big shoes to fill. The biggest in the news business, because NBC is not going to give up their flagship political interview show.

Tim Russert moderated Meet the Press since 1991. He took the fledgling program and transformed it into the highest rated news interview show on Sunday morning. He did it with his signature style of straight and sharp questioning: always fair, always tough.

Whoever replaces him must do the same.

His replacement must be tough, sharp, but fair. Not a talking head. Not somebody interested in hearing themselves talk. Russert was popular because Russert's show was more about substance. As much as we recognize now, after losing Russert, that the man made Meet the Press, Meet the Press was not about Russert. Shows like Countdown, Hardball, and O'Reilly are showcases for their hosts. But on Meet the Press, the focus was on the story, the guest, and Russert's style ensured sights were set on the substance and not distracted by an overpowering personality in the host chair.

Politico is reporting now on Russert being replaced. Even at this time when many, including NBC News, are still grieving, one can't ignore that the chair will have to be filled. According to Politico, the replacement will probably not be an outsider. I would assume the same.

Politico reports names on NBC's shortlist: Andrea Mitchell, Chris Matthews, Chuck Todd, and David Gregory. Gregory and Mitchell have both guest-hosted Meet the Press. Mitchell hosts MSNBC Live at one p.m., and Gregory hosts Race for the White House at six p.m., both every weekday. Mathews, of course, is the host of Hardball, and Chuck Todd is NBC's political director. Dark horses are apparently Joe Scarborough and Tom Brokaw.

I would say neither Gregory nor Mitchell should get it. Mitchell is not a good interviewer, in my opinion. Gregory is really the likeliest candidate. My guess, given that I've seen him guest host so many times, is that he would be the replacement. But I hope not. I like Gregory, but he's not much of a personality. Now, I just said Russert was great because his show wasn't dominated by a big personality, though he still had a great one -- just perfectly suited to the program. He had great enthusiasm for politics, and that enthusiasm just emanated from his tough interviewing style, and his pursuit of truth. Gregory just doesn't stack up. He's a tough reporter (having his bouts with President Bush as a White House correspondent) but he lacks Russert's everyman appeal.

I'm shocked that Matthews is even a candidate. His style defines 'talking head' and Russert was no 'talking head.' Matthews is a tough interviewer, but he shoots his mouth off and is already controversial.

The very best candidate (and I thought this even before seeing Politico's report) is Chuck Todd. Todd comes across very much like Russert did -- an everyman, very committed to political coverage, committed to fairness and impartiality, too modest to be boastful about his own politics but not too modest as to compromise the search for truth. Todd is untested as an interviewer, but it just seems to me he's the one. He's such an asset to NBC already. Not to mention that Todd was hired directly by Russert. I have little doubt that he would be tough interviewer.

NBC must pick Todd.

Tim Russert, 1950 - 2008

2008-06-13T23:19:00.008-04:00

Since the beginning of this presidential campaign, I have been an avid viewer of NBC News and MSNBC because of the broad swath of engaging personalities from across the political spectrum that they offer every day. The commanding voice cutting through the punditry was always Tim Russert.

During MSNBC coverage of primary votes, after reaction and discussion from Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, they would frequently cut to Tim, who would offer the definitive words of the night. He would boil it down to the essentials and highlight the overarching significance like no other could. He sought the truth and he always found it without fail. As so many NBC and MSNBC colleagues have recollected, one would listen to Tim's assessments, and react, "That's it!"

Russert was one of the reasons I stuck with NBC and MSNBC, and still do. Of course I enjoy the partisan squwaking of Olbermann, Matthews, Scarborough, etc. but then there was Russert. His death is such a shock, reverberating not just through NBC or the entire media, but throughout the entire country -- a country that relied on Tim not just for information, but truth. He was simply the fairest, most accurate, and most commanding voice for political analysis on television. Period.

Like so many, my Sundays were about watching Tim on Meet the Press. This was the bottom line for politics of the week, and Tim's words the definitive analysis. His guests and panels reflected the most important issues or stories of the week. If it's Sunday, like Tim said, it's Meet the Press.

Meet the Press was Tim Russert. Sundays just won't be the same. News will not be the same.

Obama claims Democratic nomination, makes history: "America, this is our moment. This is our time."

2008-06-04T03:11:00.014-04:00

Here are Barack Obama's remarkable words from St. Paul, MN, yesterday night, the final night in the Democratic Primary season:

Tues., June 3, 2008 19:02:11 ET

Tonight, after fifty-four hard-fought contests, our primary season has finally come to an end.

Sixteen months have passed since we first stood together on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois. Thousands of miles have been traveled. Millions of voices have been heard. And because of what you said -- because you decided that change must come to Washington; because you believed that this year must be different than all the rest; because you chose to listen not to your doubts or your fears but to your greatest hopes and highest aspirations, tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another -- a journey that will bring a new and better day to America. Tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

I want to thank every American who stood with us over the course of this campaign -- through the good days and the bad; from the snows of Cedar Rapids to the sunshine of Sioux Falls. And tonight I also want to thank the men and woman who took this journey with me as fellow candidates for President.

At this defining moment for our nation, we should be proud that our party put forth one of the most talented, qualified field of individuals ever to run for this office. I have not just competed with them as rivals, I have learned from them as friends, as public servants, and as patriots who love America and are willing to work tirelessly to make this country better. They are leaders of this party, and leaders that America will turn to for years to come.

That is particularly true for the candidate who has traveled further on this journey than anyone else. Senator Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign not just because she's a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she's a leader who inspires millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight.

We've certainly had our differences over the last sixteen months. But as someone who's shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning -- even in the face of tough odds -- is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago; what sent her to work at the Children's Defense Fund and made her fight for health care as First Lady; what led her to the United States Senate and fueled her barrier-breaking campaign for the presidency -- an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be. And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country, she will be central to that victory. When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen. Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

There are those who say that this primary has somehow left us weaker and more divided. Well I say that because of this primary, there are millions of Americans who have cast their ballot for the very first time. There are Independents and Republicans who understand that this election isn't just about the party in charge of Washington, it's about the need to change Washington.Ê There are young people, and African-Americans, and Latinos, and women of all ages who have voted in numbers that have broken records and inspired a nation.

All of you chose to support a candidate you believe in deeply. But at the end of the day, we aren't the reason you came out and waited in lines that stretched block after block to make your voice heard. You didn't do that because of me or Senator Clinton or anyone else. You did it because you know in your hearts that at this moment -- a moment that will define a generation -- we cannot afford to keep doing what we've been doing. We owe our children a better future. We owe our country a better future. And for all those who dream of that future tonight, I say -- let us begin the work together. Let us unite in common effort to chart a new course for America.

In just a few short months, the Republican Party will arrive in St. Paul with a very different agenda. They will come here to nominate John McCain, a man who has served this country heroically. I honor that service, and I respect his many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine. My differences with him are not personal; they are with the policies he has proposed in this campaign.

Because while John McCain can legitimately tout moments of independence from his party in the past, such independence has not been the hallmark of his presidential campaign.

It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush ninety-five percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year.

It's not change when he offers four more years of Bush economic policies that have failed to create well-paying jobs, or insure our workers, or help Americans afford the skyrocketing cost of college -- policies that have lowered the real incomes of the average American family, widened the gap between Wall Street and Main Street, and left our children with a mountain of debt.

And it's not change when he promises to continue a policy in Iraq that asks everything of our brave men and women in uniform and nothing of Iraqi politicians -- a policy where all we look for are reasons to stay in Iraq, while we spend billions of dollars a month on a war that isn't making the American people any safer.

So I'll say this -- there are many words to describe John McCain's attempt to pass off his embrace of George Bush's policies as bipartisan and new. But change is not one of them.

Change is a foreign policy that doesn't begin and end with a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged. I won't stand here and pretend that there are many good options left in Iraq, but what's not an option is leaving our troops in that country for the next hundred years -- especially at a time when our military is overstretched, our nation is isolated, and nearly every other threat to America is being ignored.

We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in - but start leaving we must. It's time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future. It's time to rebuild our military and give our veterans the care they need and the benefits they deserve when they come home. It's time to refocus our efforts on al Qaeda's leadership and Afghanistan, and rally the world against the common threats of the 21st century -- terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. That's what change is.

Change is realizing that meeting today's threats requires not just our firepower, but the power of our diplomacy -- tough, direct diplomacy where the President of the United States isn't afraid to let any petty dictator know where America stands and what we stand for. We must once again have the courage and conviction to lead the free world. That is the legacy of Roosevelt, and Truman, and Kennedy. That's what the American people want. That's what change is.

Change is building an economy that rewards not just wealth, but the work and workers who created it. It's understanding that the struggles facing working families can't be solved by spending billions of dollars on more tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs, but by giving a the middle-class a tax break, and investing in our crumbling infrastructure, and transforming how we use energy, and improving our schools, and renewing our commitment to science and innovation. It's understanding that fiscal responsibility and shared prosperity can go hand-in-hand, as they did when Bill Clinton was President.

John McCain has spent a lot of time talking about trips to Iraq in the last few weeks, but maybe if he spent some time taking trips to the cities and towns that have been hardest hit by this economy -- cities in Michigan, and Ohio, and right here in Minnesota -- he'd understand the kind of change that people are looking for.

Maybe if he went to Iowa and met the student who works the night shift after a full day of class and still can't pay the medical bills for a sister who's ill, he'd understand that she can't afford four more years of a health care plan that only takes care of the healthy and wealthy. She needs us to pass health care plan that guarantees insurance to every American who wants it and brings down premiums for every family who needs it. That's the change we need.

Maybe if he went to Pennsylvania and met the man who lost his job but can't even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one, he'd understand that we can't afford four more years of our addiction to oil from dictators. That man needs us to pass an energy policy that works with automakers to raise fuel standards, and makes corporations pay for their pollution, and oil companies invest their record profits in a clean energy future -- an energy policy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced. That's the change we need.

And maybe if he spent some time in the schools of South Carolina or St. Paul or where he spoke tonight in New Orleans, he'd understand that we can't afford to leave the money behind for No Child Left Behind; that we owe it to our children to invest in early childhood education; to recruit an army of new teachers and give them better pay and more support; to finally decide that in this global economy, the chance to get a college education should not be a privilege for the wealthy few, but the birthright of every American. That's the change we need in America. That's why I'm running for President.

The other side will come here in September and offer a very different set of policies and positions, and that is a debate I look forward to. It is a debate the American people deserve. But what you don't deserve is another election that's governed by fear, and innuendo, and division. What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon -- that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize. Because we may call ourselves Democrats and Republicans, but we are Americans first. We are always Americans first.

Despite what the good Senator from Arizona said tonight, I have seen people of differing views and opinions find common cause many times during my two decades in public life, and I have brought many together myself. I've walked arm-in-arm with community leaders on the South Side of Chicago and watched tensions fade as black, white, and Latino fought together for good jobs and good schools. I've sat across the table from law enforcement and civil rights advocates to reform a criminal justice system that sent thirteen innocent people to death row. And I've worked with friends in the other party to provide more children with health insurance and more working families with a tax break; to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and ensure that the American people know where their tax dollars are being spent; and to reduce the influence of lobbyists who have all too often set the agenda in Washington.

In our country, I have found that this cooperation happens not because we agree on everything, but because behind all the labels and false divisions and categories that define us; beyond all the petty bickering and point-scoring in Washington, Americans are a decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common challenges and common hopes. And every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again.

So it was for that band of patriots who declared in a Philadelphia hall the formation of a more perfect union; and for all those who gave on the fields of Gettysburg and Antietam their last full measure of devotion to save that same union.

So it was for the Greatest Generation that conquered fear itself, and liberated a continent from tyranny, and made this country home to untold opportunity and prosperity.

So it was for the workers who stood out on the picket lines; the women who shattered glass ceilings; the children who braved a Selma bridge for freedom's cause.

So it has been for every generation that faced down the greatest challenges and the most improbable odds to leave their children a world that's better, and kinder, and more just.

And so it must be for us.

America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment -- this was the time -- when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

I'm fairly sure the Earth shook a few times during this speech...

Obama 'effectively' clinches nomination

2008-06-03T15:53:00.011-04:00

Barack Obama has effectively clinched the Democratic nomination at this hour, the Associated Press is reporting. The Obama campaign wanted to amass enough delegates between yesterday and tonight so that after polls close in Montana and South Dakota, the Illinois senator would be over-the-top -- he would have his "big movie" ending.

At this precise moment, Obama is 30.5 delegates away from the nomination. The Associated Press also reported today that Hillary Clinton is prepared to concede tonight that Barack Obama has enough delegates to be the nominee, without ending her candidacy just yet. It's also being reported that the New York Senator told a group of supporters that she's open to the vice presidential slot if offered.

The historic nature of Barack Obama's candidacy cannot be overstated. He was the first viable African American candidate running for any party's nomination. Now he will be first African American nominated by any party for the presidency of the United States.

His unlikely campaign overcame the odds to beat the establishment candidate. Hillary Clinton entered the presidential race with the backing of a large block of the Washington establishment, her campaign maneuvering as if the New York senator was an incumbent. The media dubbed her inevitable during the summer in 2007, but Barack began to stem the tide when he won the Iowa Caucuses by a large margin. He then went on to split the states on Super Tuesday, February 5. The Obama campaign's mastery of caucuses allowed him to roll up 11 straight wins thereafter, putting him ahead in the pledged delegate count -- a lead Hillary never overcame.

The Obama campaign showed unique discipline and remarkable perception, appealing to precisely the right national mood with his message of change. That message resonated with millions of new voters, young voters, who were mobilized all over the country to deliver victories for the Illinois senator. He also raised more money than any presidential candidate in history.

There is no doubt that Barack Obama is a formidable candidate. At one time, there was widespread resignation that a Democratic victory in November was assured, though the nomination of John McCain -- brandishing his "maverick" credentials -- has changed the game. The race between Obama and McCain looks like a close one, and no doubt it will be close in November. Obama must spend the next few months combatting not only John McCain, but as a relative newcomer, introducing himself to millions of Americans and combating false notions about his past, beliefs, religion etc.

I'm optimistic. I'm hopeful. I think a John McCain presidency would be disastrous. I'm Confident this country will make the right choice -- the unprecedented choice -- of Barack Obama as President.

Yes, it's time for change.

One year, four months, and 11 days later...

2008-06-01T02:18:00.018-04:00

Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy for president of the United States on January 20, 2007. Think about that, because it was an awfully long time ago. She said in her announcement video, "I'm in, and I'm in to win." Nobody doubted how serious that statement was.

She was the highest profile candidate running -- the first viable female candidate for president in history. Her poll numbers were double-digits ahead of her nearest competitor -- behind her were a slew of high profile endorsements and the most formidable, most well-entrenched, and seasoned political machine in Washington. The media dubbed her "inevitable," her campaign switching into "general election mode" in mid-summer 2007.

And now, on March 31, 2008, what exactly can we say about Hillary and her candidacy?

In short, it's over for the Junior Senator from New York. Though I've said it before, many times, and I would certainly not be the only one, I can now say with more certainty than ever that Hillary has no chance of winning the nomination and she must see it too. I can say it with a clear "end in sight" at long last -- the primary season officially ends on Tuesday and Barack Obama plans to hold a rally that night declaring that he is victorious and there will be no one to say it's premature.

Yesterday, the Democratic National Convention Rules and Bylaws committee met to settle the debacle over the disqualified Florida and Michigan primaries. Because both states moved up their primary dates, the DNC stripped them of their delegates as punishment, though millions of people still showed up to cast votes. Given the turnout, most parties agreed a deal must be reached to allow delegates from those states to be seated at the convention.

Recently, Hillary Clinton has turned the Florida and Michigan issue into a crusade to preserve our democracy -- she gave a fiery speech in Florida where she invoked slavery, Zimbabwe, and even memories of 2000 (so much for party unity). The settlement reached on those states represented her last best chance of having a legitimate reason to remain in the race, despite increasingly long odds and difficult math. She and her team were demanding full seating of the delegates reflecting the full votes that were cast -- even though at one point Hillary stated that Michigan's vote would not count and even though she agreed, like all the other candidates, not to campaign in Florida.

Well, finally we can put that issue to bed. The RBC yesterday agreed on compromises for both states, awarding Hillary a substantial amount of pledged delegates, though it did nothing to hurt Obama's front-runner status. Florida's vote was honored as it stood, though as punishment, the committee agreed to give delegates a half-vote only, with superdelegates allowed a full vote -- cutting the delegate numbers from the FL vote in half. On Michigan, the committee did the same -- delegates given half-votes only -- approving a compromise giving Hillary 69 delegates and Obama 59.

Both teams representing Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama agreed on the FL compromise though Hillary's team strongly objected to the Michigan compromise. The event was a circus, indeed -- demonstrators for Hillary protested outside and often booed an hissed in response to deliberation and the final decision during the meeting.

From the uproar that ensued, it's obvious that there are some sour feelings -- and deep devisions. Clearly some Hillary supporters are not happy. Yet their frustrations are not eased when their candidate cites sexism and misogyny as reasons as why she's down -- low-balling it for sure.

So will Hillary's people appeal? Will they take their fight to the convention? I really don't think so. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean clearly want this fight to be over. During RBC testimony, Dean said this fight must be settled and called for unity now. The only way there will be unity now is for Hillary to exit and for the party to coalesce around Barack.

With the compromise on Michigan and FL, Hillary will have no reason to fight on after Tuesday's primaries in South Dakota and Montana. The math will be settled, and Obama will be ahead. Even though the RBC settlement put him a little farther from clinching the nomination, he is still far ahead of Hillary and only needs a fraction of remaining superdelegate endorsements to put him over the top. And given the trend, it will likely happen on or just after Tuesday.

Should Hillary really want to fight on, she can appeal. She cant take her fight to Denver -- but really, why? Even if Michigan were seated in full, exactly the way her team wanted it, she would still trail Obama. It's up to superdelegates to offer the resounding mandate, and make it absolutely evident to Hillary that she has no option but to exit.

Obama is planning a rally for Tuesday night to declare victory. He will be making his announcement in St. Paul, MN -- the same arena and location of the Republican National Convention. I think it's a brilliant move, tactically.

Finally, Democrats will have their nominee. And finally they can hone their message, coalesce around their new standard-bearer, and work toward unity. And unity will only be achieved with Hillary and Bill leading the charge -- they have to be front-and-center in this race, just on Barack's heels. Of course, unity is ultimately a measure of how successful Obama is as a candidate, but Hillary will have to offer a strong, resounding mandate and call for unity, as strong and resounding as any she has offered during her entire campaign.

I'm looking forward to this general election beginning. Obama and his campaign have every confidence it begins this week. Hillary would be well-advised to follow suit.

We've spent a year getting to know Hillary Rodham Clinton -- once called, and perhaps still, the "most famous person nobody really knows." We've seen many shades of the former first lady -- we've seen ups and downs, highs and lows, we've seen anger and we've seen cool, we've seen fire and we've seen grace. We know she's a fighter, we knows she's tough. But has her image improved? Who knows -- she remains a very divisive figure. If anything, that view has not been jettisoned by this campaign -- and in many ways, for many people, I'm sure they feel their bad feelings about Hillary are just further cemented.

But what is undeniable is that Hillary's place in the annals of American politics is forever solidified. She is one of the most formidable politicians in modern times, let alone the most formidable female. She has done more to crack the highest and hardest glass ceiling, and in many ways, despite cries of sexism, and proved that Americans are ready for a female president.

I've been saying all along -- Hillary's gender was no Achilles heal. In the end, that's not what did her in. Yes, there is sexism in America, and yes there has been a lot of sexism in this campaign. But to conclude that as the reason she's lost undermines her effort and her success entirely. I've been saying, absolutely we will have a femaile president and absolutely Americans are ready -- just not Hillary. I know there are lots of women who are distraught, asking, if not Hillary, then who? Well, it's a silly question. Where was Barack Obama four years ago? Did anybody see that coming?

I can't wait to vote for a female president -- but one milestone at a time. Hillary and Democrats should be proud and solidified in that its the Democratic Party that's leading the charge -- breaking barriers as it always has.

It's time, Hillary. Show us just how graceful you can be.

Fallout from R.F.K. reference: worse than I thought?

2008-05-23T21:51:00.008-04:00

Maybe this is the big one. Maybe this is the one that really sinks the already sinking Clinton campaign. Maybe I underestimated the reaction.

When Chris Matthews announced on Hardball that Keith Olbermann would be doing a 'Special Comment' in direct reaction to Hillary's rather startling reference to the assassination of Robert Kennedy as a reason for staying in the Democratic nominating contest, I knew this was probably bigger than I thought.

In fairness, I think it's somewhat clear that Olbermann is in the tank with Obama. He's also directed a 'Special Comment' at Senator Clinton before -- after Geraldine Ferraro's comments that Obama would not be where he is if he weren't black. But it was no castigation of Hillary. Indeed, it was merely Keith imploring that the Senator rise above, and reject that kind of race-baiting. Keith's frustration directed, in part perhaps, to the lack of assertiveness on the part of the New York Senator to denounce the comments -- to simply say "Sorry, I was wrong, I screwed up."

Well, the same goes for tonight's 'Special Comment' wherein Keith expressed utter outrage at what he pegged as a pretty sorry excuse for an apology from Hillary. The rest of his outrage directed at the truly irresponsible and insensitive reference to national horror that is the "political assassination" -- no matter who was the target.

In my previous post, I expressed my own surprise that Hillary's statement of clarification involved an apology to the Kennedys -- not to Barack Obama. Did she truly imagine that the uproar over her comments was based merely upon a possible impugning of the Kennedy legacy? I think not.

When candidates seek to clarify comments, they do so because they recognize the way it's being funneled through the media. If they don't, well, call it a lack of media savvy.

What Clinton must have been seeking to avoid was fallout over a possible suggestion that she would stay in the race given the possibility that her opponent might be dead in June. Of course we can't read her mind. And really, nobody thinks that's what she was implying. But it's pretty irresponsible for a politician to make such a reference and NOT to expect exactly that kind of reaction, especially given the race and gender sensitivity that hangs over this presidential campaign like lead weights.

When I heard Clinton's remarks, yes I thought they were awkward. But my immediate reaction wasn't outrage, it was merely the recognition that Hillary had just said something really dumb and she ought to know better. But hearing Olbermann's vitriol makes me wonder how bad the fallout may be.

I agree with Keith that her "apology" was indeed half-hearted. That lack of any comments to the effect of "Sorry I screwed up" is indicative of a pattern Hillary has displayed of really never owning up to her own mistakes, no matter how stupid. Keith calls this one the most offensive. He says it basically kills any chance she ever had of being on a ticket with Barack. I think he might be right.

Hillary's "apology" also involved an explanation that the Kennedys were on her mind recently given Teddy's recent hardships as a reason for making the "off-hand" reference. Keith astutely points out that [shockingly] she's made reference to the R.F.K. tragedy before. I said previously that Clinton has made constant reference to Bill's locking up the 1992 nomination in June. Apparently on several separate occasions Hillary immediately followed the reference to Bill by invoking the R.F.K. assassination -- which pretty much indicates that her explanation of Ted's illness prompting the reference today was just total crap.

I think it's safe to say the Clinton campaign -- and on several occasions, Hillary herself -- have fed us crap before. And we've gobbled it up. And I've found it rather annoying.

But perhaps, not this time. That, unlike other instances of crap slinging from the Clintonistas, this one will incite outrage that won't fade away -- outrage that Hillary cannot simply explain away.

If Olbermann is outraged -- if her thinks it's totally "unforgivable" -- you bet your ass he's not the only one. Because I'm pretty sure there will be more than a few superdelegates who will be just as outraged.

Here's Keith Olbermann's special comment in full:

Discussing reasons for staying in the race, Hillary references R.F.K. assassination

2008-05-23T17:23:00.010-04:00

Hillary Clinton was speaking with the editorial board of South Dakota's Sioux Falls Argus-Leade today. She was asked why she thinks so many are trying to "push" her out of the race. Hillary responded by using a reference she has many times before, that her husband didn't secure the nomination until June.

What she said next was truly bizarre: "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it." Not just bizarre, but startling. Even disturbing. Every politician knows that bringing up the specter of assassination is a HUGE political no-no.

Hillary has spent recent days ratcheting up her argument for remaining in the Democratic contest, despite Obama's insurmountable lead. Hillary's advocating for the seating of Michigan and Florida delegates is her last best argument for having a legitimate shot at the nomination.

Yesterday prominent supporter, New York Governor David Patterson, said Senator Clinton might be "getting desperate." It's clear given the scope of her arguments lately: elevating the argument for seating Florida and Michigan and counting the popular vote to some kind of crusade to uphold the core democratic principles of the United States.

The RFK reference was clearly an awful flub. One can only wonder if she knew what she said precisely at the moment of saying it.

Bill Burton of the Obama campaign issued a response: "Senator Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign."

Senator Clinton issued a clarification, apologizing to the Kennedys and stating that she did not want to undermine the legacy. She was simply making a case for staying in the race until June, as if saying there's still time afterward. Her reference, she says, was because the Kennedys have been on her mind given Ted Kennedy's recent health problems.

Well, it's nice that she's apologized to the Kennedys. But pundits are saying that what's truly offensive here is somehow implying that "anything can happen" in a protracted contest. As if she's staying in because something might happen to Barack. Pundits are also berating her for making a cheap reference to a political tragedy, wondering what she was thinking given that she is clearly smarter and sharper than that. Big mistake for a politician who should be especially sensitive, and who has repeatedly demonstrated incredible discipline.

Clearly, clearly she would never want to imply that she's staying in because "anything can happen." Clearly. The video of her giving her clarification displays the New York Senator clearly shaken. Clearly she knows she flubbed. Big time.

What's significant is that it's all over cable news right now. What's significant is that, even if she's thinking she flubbed for undermining a legacy, pundits are saying how could she been so insensitive? Some pundits are taking huge offense, saying her words were clear (i.e. her opponent might be dead in June), though others, including the Obama camp, are giving her the benefit of the doubt.

Clearly Hillary is smart person. This campaign has been long, the candidates are worn out, but should we take this as a sign that it's really gone on too long? Hillary's arguments have really gone too far? Maybe. We'll seen what the fallout is -- whether it will be the final "nail in the coffin."

Raising the specter of assassination is always a mistake, as I said before. And Hillary knows it. And she should know better.

Does Obama need Webb? If not, then who?

2008-05-21T20:33:00.012-04:00

With Barack Obama now within reach of the Democratic nomination, there is rampant speculation over who he will pick as a running mate. Hillary Clinton immediately comes to mind. But is that really likely? Obama is offering a "clean break from the past." Putting Hillary on the ticket with him is pretty antithetical to the fundamental premise of his campaign.

But does he need her? After all, as she has said many times, she's won "the big states" and can carry the states that Democrats need to win: Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia. States Bill carried. Of course, her winning those states in a Democratic primary, and the fact that Bill carried them, should provide no indication that she somehow would be best positioned to carry them against McCain (especially as a veep candidate).

So does he? No. His candidacy alone is what offends the Hillary loyalists. They, like her, aren't interested in the former first lady playing second-banana to the man who beat her. I doubt she would even accept an offer.

So if not Hillary, then who? Some pundits say that perhaps a prominent Clinton backer would go a long way toward easing the tensions between the Obama and Clinton supporters. Somebody like Ed Rendell, Governor from Pennsylvania, or Ted Strickland, Governor from Ohio. Both are governors of crucial "swing states" and have both been outspoken Clinton loyalists. General Wesley Clarke is another a Clinton loyalist (an early one, too) and he certainly has the military credentials. All are possibilities.

I say, watch out for Jimm Webb, the Junior Senator from Virginia. Jim Webb beat [douchebag] George Allen for the Virginia seat in 2006 by a razor-thin margin. A shame, because Webb should have beat the idiot in a landslide. In case you don't remember, Allen is the asshole who used the slur "macaca" in reference to a young Indian-American who happened to be filming at a campaign event on behalf of Webb. The incident never left Allen, and rightly so. Though, mind-bogglingly, it didnt' sink him. It only helped Webb scrape by.

Webb is a highly decorated Vietnam combat veteran. He's a former Republican who served as the first Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs and then as Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. He has since converted to the Democratic Party.

Webb has been a notable critic of the Iraq War, and once penned an op-ed predicting a protracted guerrilla war -- which has since proven accurate. Webb also has a son who is a Marine serving in Iraq. Near the time of his election to the senate, Webb's son had a brush with death. During a White House reception, President Bush approached Webb and asked, "How's your boy." Webb answered, "I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President." Bush responded, "That's not what I asked you. How's your boy?" Webb responded, "That's between me and my boy, Mr. President." Webb subsequently stated the encounter made him want to slug the president.

What is also very significant about Webb is his connection to the much discussed "working class white" from Appalachia -- the infamous demographic which Barack Obama seemingly cannot connect with. In his book, "Born Fighting," Webb discusses the Scotch-Irish Americans who settled the region from Pennsylvania to Northern Alabama and Georgia, and his roots within that demographic. The Obama campaign would be smart to look into Webb to potentially tap into the benefits of such a connection. Obama will need to introduce himself to these people, who have resisted him, and having someone at his side who is one of them wouldn't hurt.

But does he need that, really? It depends. If Obama seriously wants to compete in the Appalachia region, he'll need a "regular guy" at his side, somebody rough around the edges who can relate to the demographic that can help introduce them to the Illinois Senator. But if he really wants their votes, it's truly up to Obama to get into the region and convince them he's on their side, whoever his running mate is.

Again, doesn't hurt. And Webb's military creds obviously don't hurt. He helps keep Viriginia in play. He's also pro-gun, which could help Obama with the more conservative-leaning Democrats -- the so-called "Reagan Democrats." His being a former Republican is in keeping with Obama's post-partisan appeal. Clearly he's an independent thinker, and real fighter (which is always a desirable trait in a vice president) who will buck the party-line -- exactly in line with the Obama message.

Skeptics think Webb may be a little too rough -- too much of a fighter. The confrontation with Bush would be evidence of that. There's also the idea that Obama will need a governor, who bring with them those essential executive credentials that senators don't have. Still, Huffington Post listed him at the top of the top teir of Obama veep choices, saying, " Webb is the closest thing to a frontrunner for Obama's VP these days."

Indeed, Webb seems like an ideal pick.

But, in case they rule him out, who else? Obviously there are the also-rans like Bill Richardson or Joe Biden, but I'm not certain of either of them. I love Biden, but I never liked his Iraq strategy. And Richardson was really awful in the Democratic debates.

Maybe Sherrod Brown, Junior Senator from Ohio. Again, a senator from a key swing state. But he might be too new, only elected in 2006. He's also an ultra-progressive, which as Huffington Post points out, doesn't quite satisfy the idea of a unity ticket.

Then perhaps Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano or Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius. Maybe a woman on the ticket would help reunite the party after Hillary's departure. Maybe. Both are red-state governors. Though both are untested on the national stage.

My dream of dreams is perhaps Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican who has been alienated from the party for his strong opposition against the Iraq War. He's a Vietnam veteran himself, and has refused to endorse John McCain. Recent comments denouncing McCain and praising Obama on foreign policy have raised some eyebrows. Maybe he's vying for a cabinet post? The only drawback with Hagel, despite Iraq and foreign policy, is that he's a traditional conservative when it comes to everything else, i.e. healthcare and abortion. Then again, we are looking for "post partisan" and Obama needs experience on his ticket. I heard one Democratic consultant say Hagel was her dream, as well.

If Hagel represents a bit too much post-partisanship, then Webb just seems like the perfect choice. I guess we'll just have to wait. After all, Hillary still has to get out.

Will she take it to the floor? Lets hope not.

2008-05-21T18:15:00.007-04:00

Hillary Clinton today said she might be willing to take the fight for the Democratic nomination all the way to the convention in Denver. Of course, the very idea makes many Democrats shudder. All they imagine is Ted Kennedy at the 1980 convention, pivoting around the stage, avoiding a handshake with Jimmy Carter, the man who beat him (narrowly) for the nomination that year.

Of course, Carter went on to lose [badly] to Ronald Reagan. Many attribute it to the ferocious and protracted challenge from Kennedy, which many claim split and damaged the Democratic Party for over a decade.

Many acknowledge that Hillary has a right to fight on. She has a right to make her case to the Democratic Rules Committee about seating Michigan and Florida. She still believes she has a legitimate shot at the nomination. That's just fine.

The question is, how long can she stay in without damaging the party ala 1980? As long as she's still fighting for the nomination, she will continue to knock Obama. But she walks a fine line -- how does she make her case without undermining his ultimate candidacy?

I wrote a post early this morning asking, "How bad does she want it?" I specifically asked that question because I really don't think she's posturing for anything else. She wants to be president and that's what she's running for. Not for a cabinet position. Not for the vice presidency. All the talk about her queuing herself for a secondary role is nonsense. She's not ready to walk away yet.

The intent is obvious. Her motions to get there is really what we have to wonder about. Chris Matthews calls it the greatest question in modern politics: "What will Hillary Clinton do?"

Well, does she take it to the convention? I certainly hope not. I think the mandate is with Obama. Period. It's obvious to most people. If she took it to the convention I truly think the bitterness that Obama-supporters feel toward her will bubble over whereas now, I feel, it could be quelled.

She's got a legitimate reason to stay in but she needs to get out in June. She's determined, however, to resolve the situation in Florida and Michigan. Reports have already claimed that it won't help her, even in the best case scenario. I think that when she makes her case before the rules committee, if she and her people want to play rough, if they are looking for the absolute most favorable scenario or one that would somehow tip the race to her, that would be wrong. Dead wrong. It's not very likely either.

I'm really bothered by the whole Florida and Michigan fracas. I'm really bothered by what Hillary was talking about in Florida today, basically pushing the idea that there are "some people" who essentially want to disenfranchise the voters there. Well, it's a strong statement. Your case always looks better if your opposition is sinister. As if Obama wants to disenfranchise the voters there -- nonsense. I've always been bothered by this situation because clearly it's simply a means for Hilllary to remain in this race. She wants those delegates seated and she wants to include those popular vote totals so she can say she won the popular vote and she can push up the number Obama has to reach with elected delegates. It bothers me because nobody campaigned in Florida, and all the candidates including Hillary said they would not campaign there. It bothers me because only Hillary's name was on the ballot in Michigan, and she's trying to say his choice to remove his name was a purely political choice. It bothers me because all the candidates signed a pledged that said Florida and Michigan's votes would not count. Now she can look better by taking the high road in this situation, creating this really phony dispute. It's a nonsense psychological ploy, and it won't work.

I've been saying she's toast for a while, as far as the nomination is concerned. I believe it still. Will she go the distance? If she did, that would sort of confirm exactly what I used to think about Hillary Clinton: that she's looking out for herself and her own political future, the only scenario being Hillary as President.

I don't want to see a party divided. I want to see a party united, and ultimately a country united -- under Barack Obama.

"Change is coming to America"

2008-05-21T02:00:00.023-04:00

Hillary Clinton's decisive 35-point win in Kentucky, despite solidifying a strong preference for the New York Junior Senator in Appalachia, also ensured Barack Obama's already-solidified lock on the Democratic nomination.

Barack gained only 14 delegates from the Blue-Grass State, but those delegates put him within one point of obtaining a majority of pledged delegates. That majority assures him an insurmountable lead in the pledged delegate count. So, thanks to Kentucky, Barack won the pledged delegate race.

Later on in the night, when polls closed on the West Coast, Barack scored a major victory in Oregon, putting him over-the-top in the pledged delegate race. So, seeing as how neither candidate can reach the so-called "magic number" through elected delegates, it's up to the superdelegates to hekp Clinton or Obama secure the nomination.

It's clear given recent trends, despite some act of God, that the superdelegates are moving decisively (even defecting from Clinton) for Barack.

So, after tonight, despite Hillary's defiant pledge to stay in the race, I can affirm with great confidence -- with greater confidence than after Pennsylvannia, with greater confidence than after Indiana and North Carolina -- Barack Obama will be the nominee of the Democratic Party. It's inevitable. It's undeniable. It's a sure thing.

Barack brought his campaign full-circle last night, and short of declaring victory -- instead declaring a majority of pledged delegates putting him within reach of the nomination -- Obama gave a rousing speech in Iowa, where his campaign scored a historic victory on January 3rd and started on its way toward the ultimate prize.

He declared several times to the adoring crowd -- using the kind of grandiose rhetoric he used in his Iowa victory speech and for which he's subsequently criticized -- that "change is coming." It gave me chills that same way his original Iowa victory speech did.

Here's looking forward to an earth-shattering victory speech in Denver, and an even more earth-shattering inaugural address.

How much does she really want it?

2008-05-21T00:30:00.005-04:00

A while back, when I was still a self-described "moderate Republican," my assessment of Hillary Rodham Clinton went something like this: she's the ultimate 'politician', in the most gruesome sense of the word; a machine hell-bent upon achieving the highest political office available (namely, the presidency); a political opportunist of the highest order, doing whatever it takes to position herself to eventually run for the presidency, even carpet-bagging to the U.S. Senate in New York.

Well, since converting to self-described "progressive Democrat," my view of Hillary has softened. But some of what's transpired in this primary campaign for the Democratic nomination makes me feel like my earlier assessment wasn't too far off the mark.

Certainly there are pundits on television who agree. There is constantly talk of Hillary's solidly affirmed belief that she is truly the most electable candidate and Obama just cannot win (Bill Richardson recalls a conversation wherein she asserted this strongly). Well, who could really begrudge her that? Anybody running for their party's nomination has to have a reason, and believing they are most electable is not an unusual argument for candidates to make in a primary campaign.

What some have suggested, however, is that Hillary remaining in the race despite insurmountable mathematic odds is simply a ploy to undermine Obama's eventual candidacy. Basically, she can guarantee a loss for Obama in the general election, she can have her "I told you so" moment, and she will once again pursue the nomination in 2012 with even greater "inevitability" that she had before. Her "coronation" candidacy makes more sense this time than in 2007.

I am not persuaded that this is true. Can she really be that cold-blooded? Because, lets be honest, that's a pretty sinister strategy. Some suggest she's really staying in the race to position herself for the vice presidency. This seems unlikely as well. I think her argument and the assertiveness with which she trumpets it makes it clear that she believes what she says: she's won the big states, the states Democrats needs, she's won (by her own math) the popular vote, and she truly is in a position to legitimately win the nomination.

The so-called "scorched earth" strategy really just doesn't hold weight. Hillary isn't dumb -- even she must understand the reality. But I do believe that she thinks her argument about the states she's won, the popular vote, her "wins" in Michigan and Florida really should give her a shot at the nomination after the primary season ends. She doesn't want to take this to the convention (her people especially don't) but she believes her argument is sound and she will make it when the Democratic Rules Committee meets in the coming weeks.

But is she really ready to commit herself totally to electing Barack Obama President? I really don't know. She says she is, and she even says she thinks Barack can win (though she really doesn't think that). But "scorched earth"? Nope, don't think so. If she sabotages his campaign somehow, she won't score any points. And if she's defeated for the nomination, even if the ultimate goal is to undermine Barack, she undermines herself, because it's a big signal that the political torch is passed and the voters will want new blood, not a 64-year-old Hillary Clinton in 2012 who already tried this once before.

No Hillary really isn't as cold-blooded as I once thought she was. No, she's not thinking "I want to be president and I'm the right one and nobody else and I will do anything to get it." Remember that the Clintons have to consider their own legacy.

She's in the middle of a primary. She's going to lose, but she thinks she has a shot, so she'll stake her claim. If her words seem harshly combative, well, she's got to give some meat to her supporters to keep them energized. But does she want to kill Barack's chance? Probably not. She's smart. She must have some sense of reality.

She likely wouldn't be able to even if she wanted to wreck him. Obama's support is largely grass-roots and very, very dedicated, and will forge on despite any odds they face. She's underestimated him before and she's likely doing the same now. But she's entitled to her opinion for sure.

Should she watch what she says? That's debatable, and I would say, yes. Yes, she should.

The 'Liberal Lion'

2008-05-20T21:31:00.005-04:00

Ted Kennedy was rushed to the hospital over the weekend with apparent symptoms of a stroke. It was later confirmed the 76-year-old Senior Senator from Massachusetts suffered a seizure.

Today we've learned that doctors at Massachusetts General Hospital have discovered Teddy has a malignant brain tumor. He will receive radiation and chemotherapy as treatment.

On a day when all media coverage should have been focused on the Oregon and Kentucky primaries -- after which Barack Obama will have achieved a milestone, securing a majority of pledged delegates -- most are focusing on Teddy and old lion's legacy.

The news of Teddy's diagnosis hung like a weight over the Congress. Senators and Congresspersons were visibly sullen in interviews. Senator Dodd from Connecticut, Teddy's closest friend in the Senate, couldn't get through his statements without becoming overcome by emotion. Sen. Byrd of West Virginia, the oldest man in the Senate, broke down on the Senate floor talking about his friend, Teddy.

Praise for Teddy even came from the Right, Republicans like Senators Mitch McConnell and Orin Hatch, praising and offering best wishes for their colleague. They respect him as a man of conviction, always willing to work across the aisle. They know where he stand and they appreciate that.

This weekend, even President Bush, a fierce political and ideological adversary but sometimes ally, offered a message of comfort. He spoke to Ted's wife Vicki, asking her, "Take care of my friend."

Barack Obama was interviewed on MSNBC and diverted conversation about the primaries, saying that Ted and his wife and family deserved all the support they can get. Hillary Clinton also offered a statement, as well as John McCain from across the aisle. All describe Teddy as a "fighter" and McCain went so far as to call him the Senate's most effective legislator.

Of course, many around the country are keeping Teddy in their thoughts and prayers. He has been perhaps the country's most forceful and consistent champion for the under-represented, on issues of civil rights, human rights, women's rights, and equal rights in general. He is the heart and soul of the Kennedy family, the last of the Kennedy brothers, overcoming tragedy and his own shortcomings to rising to the level of one of the history's greatest U.S. Senators -- the country's 'liberal lion'.

Of course, Ted Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama for President, along with his niece Caroline and Maria Shriver -- an endorsement that carried very heavy weight for the Illinois Senator. Barack's message of unity is very much a reflection of the Kennedy legacy -- the messages of John, Robert, and Teddy -- and in many ways, his candidacy and perhaps, his presidency, will carry on that legacy.

Fight on, Teddy. We're praying for you.

Clinton craziness

2008-05-19T16:34:00.005-04:00

I posted a few days ago about Hillary sort of falling off the radar. Obama and McCain are scuffling over foreign policy and the media is eating it up as a general election precursor. The only way she pops up on the screen is by talking smack.

Hillary is soldiering on in Kentucky, where she is heavily favored -- the state is mostly white, a majority lacking a college degree. Lately she's softened her tone, not attacking [presumptive nominee] Obama. More recently and especially today her tone is sharper.

Her recent attacks are against the media for calling the race for the nomination over and Obama the winner. She and her supporters say "Wait a minute! Hold on! Not so fast!" Of course, really nobody in the media and very few elected officials who support Barack are calling on Hillary to drop out. They are simply looking at the numbers, the math, all the facts that are simply stacked against Hillary (they're calling a duck a duck). The Clinton camp are likening the pundits' claim to Bush's "mission accomplished." Pretty ballsy for Hill.

Today she's in Kentucky, trying to build a bigger margin than she's already likely to get. She's got the knives out and, again, she's tackling her opponent, taking a less conciliatory tone than she has recently. She's saying she's ahead in the popular vote....which is craziness. Another example of a the Clinton camp fudging the numbers, raising the bar, moving the goal-post just to suit themselves.

Yes, she's ahead in the popular vote but only when you discount the votes in caucus states (where popular tallies are estimated, some state's not even releasing popular tallies), and only when you count Florida (where no Democratic contender campaigned) and Michigan (where only Hillary was on the ballot). Really this whole thing, this whole perception game the Clintonistas are playing to put a rope around the superdelegates is low-balling it.

Also, it's not working.

Today, the U.S. Senate's oldest member, Robert C. Byrd (bless him), endorsed Obama. Byrd is from West Virginia (and a former member of the KKK), the state where Hillary won by 40 points. It's a clear sign that despite Hillary's arguments, despite her support among blue-collar workers, and despite the win in Byrd's beloved home-state, the Democratic establishment continues to move toward Barack.

Clearly, the Clinton craziness has little sway. Hillary, herself, has said many, many times that superdelegates are independent, meant to make decisions based on their best judgments of who would make the best president.

It looks very much like they are. Sorry, Hill.