Biden for VP

As the world now knows, Barack Obama has chosen Joe Biden as his VP running mate. Biden is a fine choice. A safe choice. But I didnt' think he was the best choice.

I sent the following email (I've edited out references to other VP contenders) to a friend yesterday before the Biden choice was confirmed:

Just wanted to get this thought out there before it becomes moot tomorrow. Obama is announcing his vp pick tomorrow. In my opinion, there is one guy who is the obvious choice, and would be an absolute grand-slam...but he's apparently not even on the radar screen.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.

What does Richardson give Obama?

1. He's a connected, inside-the-beltway, exceptionally experienced - and an "outsider."

If Obama chooses Biden - who is fine - he's getting an almost 40-year veteran of the Senate. There goes the "change" theme. ... Richardson spent eight years in Washington in the Clinton Admin, and was in leadership of the Democratic party prior to becoming Governor. He has the connections, understands the inside game, has a national name, can raise money --- and as Governor of New Mexico, has a legit claim to being an outsider that can reinforce a change message. Perfect.

2. He brings boatloads of experience and the "resume."

What's Obama's biggest alleged weakness? His resume. He doesn't have the "experience" necessary. (Off topic - Yeah, right. Go look at Bush the Lesser's "experience" prior to running on his daddy's name. Go look at Reagan's "experience." Or JFK.) Badda-bing. Problem solved. Richardson - even though he is governor of New Mexico - may have the most foreign policy experience of any "name" democrat right now outside of Biden. He negotiated with North Korea, Iraq/Sadaam Hussein. World leaders know and respect him. He was clear in opposition to Iraq. He served as Energy secretary in the Clinton admin. What are the four biggest issues of this campaign (probably): 1. Economy; 2. National Security; 3. Health Care; 4. Energy. Obama is lights out on 1/3, Richardson is lights out on 2/4. It is a perfect complementary fit...AND he doesn't serve as a glaring signpost to Obama's alleged weakness. You select Biden - who has little directly going for him other than foreign policy expertise - and what that primarily does is show voters that Obama is sensitive to foreign policy as a weakness. ... Richardson reinforces that area, but is much more well rounded (pun intended) so that he doesn't accentuate it as a weakness of Obama's. Perfect.

3. He is geographically targeted to states that are close and Obama needs.

Biden is from Delaware. Yawn. It always votes democrat. It's close to Virginia, but he's not going to move Virginia. .... What does Gov. Richardson bring? He pushes New Mexico in safely Dem territory. He *likely* solidifies Colorado as Blue, and may just put Nevada out of reach. He will also genuinely puts places like Montana, South Dakota, Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, etc. in better position - why? He's a gun-toting, pro-gun, anti-gun control Democrat. Don't find many of those. He is really liked and respected in the west because he's willing to take on the national party on guns. That will help in those other generally red states too. Perfect.

4. He isn't a white guy.

.... Biden [is]. He solidifies a hispanic base that - at least the media reports - is having some trouble coming around to Obama, and sees McCain as the moderate he was before the lust for the Presidency got to him. If he was to really push up the hispanic vote, he could make Florida a lot closer than it is now and, again, really help in Colorado and Nevada. Perfect.

5. He brings the Clinton supporters around.

Biden... - none of them are an overt olive branch to those Clinton supporters that are still (irrationally) irritated that Obama won the nomination. Richardson is. He has a long history with the Clinton family, and in the Clinton Admin. He is still close to him, her, and a lot of the key players from that era. He could be seen as the olive branch without actually nominating Hillary (which just can't be done). Perfect. (By the way - my gut feeling is that this is also the very reason he was never considered - he too much a Clinton choice, and Obama's people wanted a clean break.)

In every way conceivable, Richardson would be a perfect compliment to Obama on the democratic ticket. And he, apparently, wasn't even considered.

It just doesn't make complete sense to me that Gov. Richardson wasn't considered. That said, Joe Biden is a very solid choice. My concern, of course, is that Biden acts as a bright red flag pointing out Obama's "weakness," rather than reinforcing his general message. We'll see.

Biden was probably my third choice in the Democratic primaries behind Obama/Hillary (tie for first) and Richardson (which explains why I would have preferred him as VP).

It's a solid ticket. Still underdogs, but solid. 70+ days to go...

The Wall Street Journal seems to get it...

...although the rest of the Right has not come around yet. This opinion column from Tuesday's Wall Street Journal says exactly what I've been thinking for the last two weeks - Obama and the Power of Words

Here are a few excerpts, but read the whole thing:

"For those who have abandoned hope, we'll restore hope and we'll welcome them into a great national crusade to make America great again!"

So Ronald Reagan proclaimed on July 17, 1980, as he accepted his party's nomination for president at the Republican National Convention in Detroit, Mich.

Earlier that day, the New York Times ran a long profile of Reagan on its front page. The author, Howell Raines, lamented that the news media had been unsuccessful in getting Reagan to speak in anything other than "sweeping generalities about economic and military policy." Mr. Raines further noted: "political critics who characterize him as banal and shallow, a mouther of right-wing platitudes, delight in recalling that he co-starred with a chimpanzee in 'Bedtime for Bonzo.'"

Throughout his campaign, Reagan fought off charges that his candidacy was built more on optimism than policies. The charges came from reporters and opponents.
...
Are Republicans making the same mistake with Barack Obama?

For months now, Hillary Clinton has suggested that Mr. Obama is all rhetoric, no substance. This claim, or some version of it, has been at the center of her campaign since November. One day after losing to him in Wisconsin and Hawaii -- her ninth and tenth consecutive defeats -- she rather incredibly went back to it again. "It's time we moved from good words to good works, from sound bites to sound solutions," she said -- a formulation that could be mistaken for a sound bite.

As she complained about his lack of substance, tens of thousands of people lined up in city after city, sometimes in subfreezing temperatures, for a chance to get a shot of some Mr. Obama hopemongering. Plainly, her critique is not working.

And yet, Republicans are picking it up. In just the past week, conservative commentators have accused Mr. Obama of speaking in "Sesame Street platitudes," of giving speeches that are "almost content free," of "saying nothing." He has been likened to Chance the Gardener, the clueless mope in Jerzy Kosinski's "Being There," whose banal utterances are taken as brilliant by a gullible political class. Others complain that his campaign is "messianic," too self-aggrandizing and too self-referential.

The past week or two, right-wing radio has been asking Obama supporters to call in - then proceed to "marginalize" them by saying that there is no "substance" only rhetoric.

They are essentially acting like Hillary-lite. That is exactly how Sen. Clinton has tried to oppose Obama for the past three months now.

We see how well that has worked.

Inspiration is substance. Hope is substance. The fact that people want to be involved in their communties in a grassroots manner is substance. The thought of having political discourse that is above "how can I defeat my opponent" and instead says "how can I make my community better" is substance. That is the meat that makes people take action.

Clinton/Conservatives try to attack Obama as having failed to provide more and more detailed programs. Oh, he has programs, and he had details. But what I want in a President - and what I think America wants in a President - is not a manager to dig down and do the grunt-work. I want a leader with a vision of where America needs to go. A vision of a greater America. And, maybe most importantly, a vision of how Americans - all of us - can be a part of taking us there.

Or to put it in his words:

"We're not looking for a chief operating officer when we select a president," he said during a question and answer session at Google headquarters back in December.

"What we're looking for is somebody who will chart a course and say: Here is where America needs to go -- here is how to solve our energy crisis, here's how we need to revamp our education system -- and then gather the talent together and then mobilize that talent to achieve that goal. And to inspire a sense of hope and possibility."

That is substance.

Grace and legacy...

If today's New Hampshire primary is as bad for Sen. Hillary Clinton as it looks like it could be - say a double digit loss to Sen. Obama - the next weeks/months will be highly instructive as to the genuine nature of the Clinton's.

I am not embarrassed to admit that I am one of the three people left (it sometimes seems) that believes the Clinton's are genuine. That they strive and live for public service. And they are more interested in the future of America than in amassing power. Maybe I am naive, maybe I am simple. But, in some ways, I have to believe that they are sincere.

I grew up in small towns in Arkansas. I came from no connections and no family name. My parents were teachers and I grew up middle-class/lower middle-class. The story of Bill Clinton is the great America dream. A boy with no name, no connections, no money, from no where of import - works hard, studies hard, and makes it. I have always seen a tiny bit of myself in that story. In the summer of 1991, I attended Boy State in Arkansas - and that weekend, while Gov. Bill Clinton was campaigning in New Hampshire and other places in anticipation for the 1992 election, I must have seen the Boy State picture of the young-Bill Clinton shaking the hand of President John Kennedy 50 times. I also grew up watching Hillary Clinton work on important causes long before there were any cameras or press people following her around. She didn't do it to seek power or fame, she worked because children and other folks needed help.

I always felt a connection to that story. I never had much, but (at least, I would say so myself) I worked hard, had a great first-career, began a wonderful family, went back to law school and had some success, and am basically living my life's dreams right now. In my own way, I made it. Just like the Clinton's made it. And yes, there are flaws and failings. For all of the mythology and inspiration of the story of Bill Clinton - which I am in awe of, there is also the character flaws and poor personal judgment - which I also know is true. And yet...

I have never bought in to the right-wing created charicature of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Manipulative, cold, calculating, out for nothing save more power. It's such an easy story, and the media has beaten us over the head with it for so many years now that - because perception is reality - it is accepted as true. But I've never bought it. They are vilified because they win. They are vilified because they exposed the falsity of conservative politics - that you don't have to use fear to win, that you can balance budgets while increasing social responsibility, that you can balance free markets and reasonable regulation - the list goes on and on. They were successful, so the right-wing had to paint them as monsters in order to offset the success. They are power hungry. They are manipulative. They mercilessly pounce on anyone who dares oppose them - and leave a trail of broken careers, hopes and dreams in their wake. But that is not what I see.

What I see are a supremely politically gifted, exceptionally intelligent, and improbably resilient couple. I see two people who - instead of pursuing lucrative careers in the private sector with those prestigious degrees they gained - choose to devote their lives to public service. State government service, children's defense, federal government service - the list goes on. They have lived lives of public service. I can't imagine that this was the easiest way of getting ahead - because my supposition is not that their primary motivation was to get ahead - rather to serve America.

But maybe I'm just naive.

I think that we'll find out for sure over the next month or so.

If indeed Obama wins NH today by double digits, I think he is without doubt in the driver's seat to be the Democratic nominee this year. How will the Clinton campaign respond? Although this may be an over-simplification, there are basically two options:

1. She can close this campaign with grace, work to unify the party, and both Hillary and Bill can take comfort and encouragement in the fact that Obama really is the continuation of the Clinton legacy. He is the new generation taking the torch from the last - as JFK spoke of so many years ago. Although for me, it seems too soon for such a generational shift in leadership, I was astounded to hear Jonathan Alter last night on the Charlie Rose Show mention that it has been 16 years since Clinton won in 1992, and it was 15 years between the death of Franklin Roosevelt in 1945 and the election of John Kennedy in 1960.

Obama is, in many ways, the political descendant of the Clinton's. Unity, hope, fresh perspective. An understanding that ideological division is not what makes America great, but rather pragmatic ideas that work. That's what the Clinton's were in the 90s - a shift away from cold, trickle-down theory toward tangible, pragmatic action. Bill Clinton won because he was able to "re-find" those "Reagan Democrats," he appealed to Democrats, Independents, and moderate Republicans. That is Obama today. His new vision for America embraces progressives but reaches out to and welcomes those independents and Republicans who really are looking for a third-way. He is now the torch-bearer.

But that has to be very hard for Sen. Clinton (and the former President) to accept - because I'm sure they still believe they have so much service yet to give to America. But, if Obama does win big today, it likely means the Clinton era is ending, and a new generation begins. If Hillary accepts this gracefully, and pours herself into completing a positive campaign, unifying the party, I think it will do wonders to cement the legacy of public service that defines Bill and Hillary Clinton. Yes, she needs to continue in the campaign - if Obama stumbles, she needs to be the alternative (not John Edwards). But she needs to continue with grace, dignity, and with party-unity being the higher calling. She can go back to her work in the Senate with her legacy intact, if not strengthened.

Or...

2. She can prove the right-wing critics right. She can go desperately negative. She can fight and scratch and claw her way back into contention on Feb. 5. This might actually "work" in the sense of winning her the nomination. She might be able to sling enough mud to pull him back to the field and make him beatable. But it will lose the general election - so many Americans are energized and uplifted by Obama, that they would react strongly negatively to her. And, maybe more importantly, it will crystallize the legacy of Bill and Hillary as exactly what they are characterized as - power-hungry, manipulative, and with their own personal glory above that of their party and country.

Maybe none of this will apply. Maybe she'll surprise tonight and lose by 5 or so...be legitimately right back in it, and run her campaign on to victory. But if she is well-beaten tonight - I think we will really learn a lot about the true nature of the Clinton's.

Maybe I'm naive.

I really, really hope not.


UPDATE: Here is Alter's piece in Newsweek that he referenced last night on Charlie Rose: How Tomorrow Became Yesterday.

The 16 years since the Clintons grabbed control of the Democratic Party is the same amount of time that elapsed between the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1945 and John F. Kennedy's Inauguration in 1961. It's a longer period than many of us would care to admit. Kennedy operated "in the shadow of FDR," as the historian William E. Leuchtenberg put it, and he updated the New Deal to the New Frontier. But Kennedy's main argument was that "the torch has been passed to a new generation." So it is today, with the aging baby-boom generation—symbolized by the Clintons—under pressure to move aside.

Let's HOPE this is a Beginning of something big...

It is an exceptionally good night to be a Democrat. I have no idea if these types of voter turnout numbers can be maintained, but if so, it's the beginning of something big. And something great for America.

Congratulations to Sen. Obama. As long as I'm at it, congratulations to Sen. Edwards, Sen. Clinton, Gov. Richardson, Sen. Biden, and Sen. Dodd. The absolute '27 Yankees of political lineups.

Also, congratulations to Gov. Huckabee - I've never really hid my respect for him. I think he is genuine. I respect that - it doesn't mean I agree with everything he does, but the way he demonstrated that genuineness without organization and money can still overcome calculation and millions has my respect.

On to NH, and (hopefully) to more and more people coming on board the progressive bandwagon. There is still a long way to go, and now it will be much more interesting with Obama and Hillary going head to head.

It is an exceptionally good night to be a Democrat.

2007 in the News...

Just for kicks, I've been thinking the past few days about what I thought have been some of the biggest news stories of 2007. Here is a list that I thought of - by no means in order of importance or chronology. Just some headline grabbers:

1. The Surge/Petreas Report/Iraq

Although this has fallen from the headlines of late, I think this was probably the biggest story of the year to me. The President's decision to increase troop levels in order to provide stability to generate a political settlement; the unquestioned success of the military in acheving that increased stability/decreased violence; Gen. Petraus and Ambassador Crocker testifying solely to the security side of the equasion; and finally, the Bush Administration, politicians, and the mainstream media completely ignoring the fact that, again, our military's steller success is being squandered by politicians who are unable to find settlement.

2. The '08 Presidential Nomination Campaigns

It's been a fun race with a surprising number of contenders for the nomination in both party's keeping the race wide open.

3. Iran

Both the increasing leverage and threat Iran poses as a legitimate regional hedgmon, and the intelligence community's surprising uprising against the Bush Administrations drum-beat to war on a third front.

4. Upheaval in Pakistan/Bhutto Assination

Pakisatan was already devolving, led by a military dictator ditinguishable from Sadaam Hussein only in degrees. The assination of Bhutto was tragic to a new middle class seeking legitimate democracy. The Bush Administration once again demonstrates its utter incompetence and lack of wisdom by un-hedged support of an anti-democratic dictator.

5. Resurgance of the Taliban in Afghanistan

Fueled by drug profits that the Bush Administration (in an all too familiar refrain) does not have the competence or intelligence to curtail, the Taliban and Al Queada is finding renewed strength in Afghanistan, where the US troops are stretched thin by the Surge in Iraq.

6. Mortgage madness/Sub-prime lending mess

I'm not convinced this will end up being as bad for the average American as the "If it Bleeds it Leads" media's bold-typed headlines would indicate, but there is no question that financial mismanagement and over-reaching has taken its toll on some of Wall Streets biggest firms.

7. The VT Shootings

Just a tragedy that defies explanation.

8. Oil Prices

With all the volitility in the world, this should not come as a surpise, but it flat out does come with upside. The higher oil prices reach, the more cost-efficient research into alternative fuels and alternative transportation becomes.

9. The Final Chapter of Harry Potter

It was somewhat sad, to me, to read the conclusion of this wonderful series. I've enjoyed every moment of it, and will probably continue to do so long into the future through re-readings.

10. Baseball's Steroid Scandal/Bonds' homerun record

Just ugly. The Mitchell report was damning, but it feels more like the closing chapter on a nasty era than the beginning of anything. And Bonds got his HR record, but received as little media attention (for the record) as could possibly be imagined.

11. AG/AG - The Improbable rise, and Cataclysmic Fall of Alberto Gonzalez

Just a mess of an Attorney General, Bush's fiercest Yes-Man could not withstand the cascading pressure of scandal after scandal after scandal after scandal.

12. Houston Dynamo Repeat as MLS Champions

Okay, this is much more local, and just a personal favorite, but to me, the improbale journey of this team from mediocre, at best, to repeast MLS Champs was really amazing. I've never supported a champion in any sport - and now I get two back-to-back. It's great, and it's all the better to support an organization that builds its team as a team, and players who really do define hard-working, team-first attitude. Good on you Dynamo - let's get another next year!

A Great Idea...

I'm struggling with whether or not I should use the word "visionary" when discussing this new proposal.

Can something really be visionary if it is merely taking an idea from one place and extending it to a wider audience? On the other hand, if no one has suggested it or thought of implementing it, isn't that the very meaning of being visionary...seeing something that others don't yet - but soon will. Creative foresight to imagine something that isn't --- becoming?

Whatever you want to call it - this is a great idea: Clinton's 401K Proposal

[Hillary] Clinton laid out a proposal to provide a universal 401(k) plan for everyone, at a speech Tuesday in Webster City, Iowa.

She said the savings rate today is lower than it was in 1929, more than 75 million workers do not have employer-sponsored pensions to save for retirement and many people who do have retirement plans are not saving enough.

Under her "American Retirement Accounts" plan, everyone would have access to a portable 401(k) and the government would offer matching tax cuts of up to $500 to $1,000 to help middle class and working families save. The campaign estimates it would cost $20 billion to $25 billion a year to provide the matching tax cuts and said she would pay for it by freezing the estate tax at 2009 levels. "These accounts will take the best of the 401(k) plans and make them available to every working family," Clinton [said]. ...

Clinton said that like her health care plan, no one would be forced to set up these accounts and that people who like their current retirement accounts could keep them. She said the current government was subsidizing those who need it least, using about half of the nearly $200 billion spent yearly to encourage retirement savings to help the top 10% of earners and spending only 10% of that money to help the bottom 60% of earners.

Her plan would provide a matching refundable tax credit for 100% of the first $1,000 in savings for every married couple making up to $60,000 and would provide a 50% match on the first $1,000 of savings for couples making between $60,000 and $100,000 a year. The accounts would allow individuals to contribute up to $5,000 per year on a tax-deferred basis.

The credits would be available to all Americans in existing 401(k) type accounts as well as people who choose the accounts she proposes.

The plan would give new tax credits to small businesses to encourage them to provide retirement plans for employees. It focuses on creating competition among private firms that would drive more of them to provide marketable, secure plans, but that there would be an option of opening an American Retirement Account through "a publicly managed clearinghouse similar to the Thrift Savings Plan which Members of Congress can currently utilize". Those plans would be held and managed by private firms. ...

The accounts would allow penalty-free withdrawals for major investments like buying a home and paying for higher education or to help manage periods of unemployment.

Now there is a solid, enterprising, free market proposal that helps people, details how it will be paid for, and makes sense for millions of Americans.

I know that there is a large portion of the public that feels bitterness and distaste for Hillary...but it is not because of where she stands on the issues, or what she proposes, or how she intends to accomplish her goals for America. Instead, it is because of a charicature of her that has taken hold.

This is a brilliant idea. One that will likely soon be championed by politicians on both sides of the aisle. One that, hopefully, will soon be carried into fruition.

Hillary continues to propose rational, thoughtful, and achievable ideas about how we can improve our America. The more she does this, the less polarizing she becomes, and the less people accept the charicature. That's a pretty good idea too.

The Golden Age of America...

Our democracy must be not only the envy of the world but the engine of our own renewal. There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America. -- Bill Clinton, First Inaugural Address

In the early 2000's, I used to make an argument to friends that history would one day look back on the last decade of the 20th century as the Golden Age of America. For almost a decade, America experienced a sort-of new Pax Americana - a time of peace and prosperity simply unrivaled in American history.

But that story is rarely if ever told today. Instead, over the past two years, crescendo-ing over the past six months, we are constantly bombarded by propaganda by the conservative right alleging that the Clinton Presidency accomplished nothing; was a do-nothing administration; did not do anything for America, etc. And people, apparently, are actually buying into this propaganda.

In my opinion, this is just a calculated attempt by the Right to cast dispersions on the Democratic Party in the run-up to Election 2008. More specifically, it is probably an attempt to de-legitimize the candidacy of Hillary Clinton by negating the accomplishments of Bill Clinton's administration. You see, Republicans...at least hard-core wingers...are running scared. They realize that America remembers what a good President was like, even thought we've had 6+ years of incompetence now. America is impressed by this slate of Democratic candidates who are willing to take our nation in a new direction. And more specifically, as America gets to know Hillary Clinton (not the right-wing caricature of her, but the actual candidate) they like her, they see her as a strong, intelligent, nuanced, and having the gravitas of a Commander-in-Chief. Heck, that is enough to give a conservative nightmares.

So they make stuff up. They try to convince regular folks, independents and traditional Republicans that the Clinton Presidency was a joke. That he accomplished nothing. Therefore, another Democrat - or Hillary herself - will accomplish nothing.

That simply could not be further from the truth.

Let me be honest - Bill Clinton was not one of America's "Great" President's. In my opinion, he will not go down in history as one of the top five, the "upper-echelon" if you will. And, it must be conceded that Clinton and his administration was unable to accomplish nearly as much in his second term as in his first - because of the most shameful, partisan witch-hunt in American political history. I don't excuse Clinton's affairs in office. It was wrong, and frankly pathetic. The lack of judgment regarding his personal life that he showed in office is enough, at least for me, to have knocked him out of the running for one of our Greatest Presidents, even if he had accomplished more than what he did. Having said that, his impeachment was nothing more than a political sham, and it took the focus away from the work of the American people.

But, the amazing thing is what was done in the 8 years of the Clinton Presidency. It is a truly amazing record, and one that has probably not been seen in the post-War era. To combat some of the revisionist propaganda about the lack of accomplishments of the Clinton era, below is a PARTIAL list of accomplishments and initiatives passed or put in motion during 1993-2000. Not everyone will agree politically that each of these items was a home-run. The point is the VAST amount accomplished during Clinton's two terms...especially when contrasted with the abysmal record of the past 6+ years.

Accomplishments of the Clinton Presidency
Domestic Legislation:
~ Family Medical Leave Act (1993) - unpaid leave to care for a newborn child or sick family member without losing jobs
~ Brady Bill (1993) - gun safety legislation
~ Creation of AmeriCorps (1993) - most significant public service program since the 1960s
~ Expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit* (1993) - provided tax relief to millions of low-income working Americans
~ Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act* (1993) - raised taxes on the top 1.2%, lowered taxes for 90% of all small businesses and 15MM low-income Americans
~ Omnibus Crime Act (1994) - included supplemental funding to local governments for 100,000 new police officers
~ Paperwork Reduction Act* (1995) - streamlined federal government processes; reduced bureaucracy; saved tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer money
~ Minimum Wage Increase* (1996) - was not increased again for 11 years
~ Defense of Marriage Act (1996) - allows state-determination of recognition of marriage
~ Welfare Reform (1996) - most significant welfare overhaul since the programs inception
~ Creation of the Hope and Lifetime Learning Tax Credits* (1997) - makes two years of post-secondary education available to Americans at no cost
~ Creation of the Roth IRA* (1998) - tax savings for retirement

Economy (*Note: many of the economic and tax laws listed above play directly into this area):
The longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history - including:
~ Average economic growth of 4.0%
~ Creation of 25MM new jobs, 92% in the private sector (more than the previous 12 years combined)
~ Real Median Family Income increases (after falling each of the previous four-years, and having been stagnant since)
~ Unemployment reached its lowest level in 30 years (before Bush Admin changed the definition of unemployment to kick the long-term unemployed off the rolls)
~ Inflation at its lowest level since the Kennedy Presidency
~ Home ownership at 67%
~ 7MM fewer Americans in poverty than when Clinton entered office (lowest poverty rate in 20 years)
~ Largest increase in higher education funding since the GI Bill (expansion of federal loan and grant programs; Lifetime Learning Credit and Hope Credit which enable any American to achieve 2 years of post-high school education for free)
~ Smallest welfare rolls in 32 years
~ Largest budget surplus in US history (after inheriting the largest deficit in US history)
~ Lowest government spending as a share of the economy since 1966
~ Lowest tax burden as a percentage of family income in 35 years
~ Surplus used to pay down debt - $360BB worth of debt paid down (remember, at the end of Clinton's second term, the government was running a surplus and was projected to pay of the ENTIRE federal debt by 2009...four years later, the US had it's LARGEST budget deficit in history AND highest debt level in history)
~ Lowest federal debt since the 60s
~ Balanced budged for the first time since 1969

Trade:
~ NAFTA (1993) - established North American Free Trade Zone (Canada, US, Mexico)
~ Creation of the WTO (1995) - world-wide initiative, US was a leader in getting it done
~ Numerous other free trade agreements with Asia, South America, and others -
~ Normalized trade relations with China

Foreign Policy:
~ Agreed Framework with North Korea (1994) - kept N. Korea w/o nukes until Bush pulled out of the framework upon taking office
~ Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (1996) -
~ Containment of Iraq (1993-2000) - including numerous bombings to enforce the no-fly zone and prevent the re-emergence of weapons of mass destruction
~ Kosovo War (1999) - NATO run, US led
~ Mideast Peace Talks (1999) - attempt to end the 2d Intafada through diplomacy

Non-Legislative Initiatives:
~ One America Initiative - race relations initiative
~ Justice Department (FBI) investigated, found, and convicted the 1993 World Trade Center bombing terrorists

General Notes:
~ First Democrat to be re-elected to the Presidency since Franklin D. Roosevelt
~ Highest end-of-Presidency approval rating since the end of WWII
~ Lowest crime rate in 26 years (overall crime rates went down each year during the Clinton era)
~ Lowest teen birth rate in 60 years
~ Lowest infant mortality rate in American history

That, my friends, is a record of accomplishment standing alone. It shines all the more brightly when placed in comparison to the last six years of the Bush Administration.

No, Bill Clinton was not one of greatest Presidents in American history. He's not in the top five. It's unlikely he cracks the top-10, although that is probably where the argument begins. The years of the Clinton era in many ways swept clean the mess and murk of the 70s and 80s, and left America stronger, safer, smarter, and more optimistic than it had been in a generation. As President, Bill Clinton accomplished as much or more domestically than any President in post-war America.

Yes, he had massive faults, poor judgment, and down-right wrong aspects of his personal life. And don't let this list convince you that I believe that everything on here was a great policy, or great decision. The point of this overview is not the wonderful things that Clinton did, but rather, the things that his Administration accomplished. Anyone can find these things using a simple Google search...but the concerted effort of the Right is to not allow people to think critically for themselves (or google for themselves) - they want to tell people what to think. Don't believe the hype about the "do-nothing" Clinton Presidency. It simply isn't true.

As President, Bill Clinton was massively successful, and massively accomplished.

The Clinton era was a new Pax-Americana, the Golden Age of our still-young nation.

Related Posts: Clinton Presidential Center

Thoughts...

I felt the Democratic debate last night was one of the best debates I've ever seen. It was lively, on topic, and --- no really --- funny.

Keith Olbermann was a tremendous debate moderator. He asked very current questions, provided genuine respect and weight to the proceeding, but actually included some levity in the process. The "crowd" that the AFL-CIO provided all the rest needed to break many of the candidates out of their shell and provide an actual "debate."

Quick synopsis:

Winners -
Sen. Hillary Clinton - she was clearly a Commander-in-Chief among politicians. One slight mis-step (shouldn't say anything that's on the mind) - otherwise a commanding and imposing figure. She maybe the best politician in my lifetime.

Sen. Barak Obama - he did not dominate on his home turf, but he held his own. With expectations so high, that is an accomplishment. His mistake was taking on lesser candidates when Hillary should be his only focus.


Losers -
Former Sen. John Edwards - he should have been Labor's candidate...but he simply never made any inroads against the top candidates. His campaign for President is over. As for another office...

Gov. Bill Richardson - another forgetable debate performance. He is such a strong public servant, maybe I am simply expecting too much. But he is CLEARLY NOT the "anti-Hillary" candidate I was expecting. I got the clear impression he is "running" for VP.

Overall -
I am so impressed by these Democratic candidates for President. Frankly, if you take away Rudy Giuliani from the Republican side, I think that there are five or six Democratic candidates that clearly surpass the Republicans as far as resume, gravity, leadership, and genuine "Presidential-ness" goes. I can see Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, and Biden as President. Let's be honest, outside of Rudy, none of the Republican candidates look like a President - McCain...does he even know who he is anymore? Romney...he seems little more than a suit trained to be a politician. Anyone else?!?

This is the strongest Democratic party of my lifetime. I'm a Hillary supporter, and I think she has what it takes to win the nomination and be our next President - but beyond her, there are so many Democratic candiates that I can be happy supporting - it's an embarrassment of riches!!!
___

Please go look that this website and organization - Center for American Progress. I've had this site bookmarked for about three-plus years now - it's time you do to.
___

Take a look at this US Senate candidate: Rick Noriega.

Link


Link


Is there anything else you want from a public servant?

The Right Battlefields...

Watch in awe at the acting ability...

This video is from the Hillary Clinton campaign website - HillaryClinton.com. I think they were clearly destined to be politicians and not actors...





Having said that - this really is a funny spoof of the Sopranos finale. Good stuff...

First Democratic Debate...

I am currently watching the first Democratic Presidential debate from South Carolina. I'm going to post some of my thoughts as the debate goes on - although this will post when the debate is over...remember, these are quick hit thoughts, and written on the fly... (+ indicates that I noted it was a really top notch answer):

Round 1 - Iraq
Clinton - Steady; Looks authoritative; didn't answer the question (was Reid right in saying the war was lost); conceded to Obama on a rebutal - GREAT move, made her look deferential yet forceful

Edwards - Smooth; good answer on Iraq (foreign policy can be his weak spot)

Biden - very off the cuff; spontaneous

Obama - Slow start, but recovered well - good, but expected, position on Iraq

Kucinich - same old, same old on anti-war; he just doesn't seem Presidential

+ Richardson - Wow, made stronger impression on Iraq that I expected; no funding; leave by 31-Dec-07; specific three point plan on what to do when the soldiers came home on 31-Dec; only specific plan answers

Dodd - unremarkable

Gravel - "this fraudulent war was lost from the beginning;" old codger; law to make it a felony to stay in Iraq

Note: Clinton given two rebuttals - no one else

R2 - Perceptions in the Public
Obama - Corruption in Campaign - Smooth, in a tricky spot

Edwards - Haircut/Wealth - nice job of twisting this into running to give the same chances to all Americans as those he has had; Hedge Funds - markets are instrumental in getting rid of poverty

Clinton - Hedge Funds - we have an enterprising economy; basic answer

Richardson - AG AG, didn't call for resignation because he's hispanic - Took this right back to AG's failings

Dodd - Washinton insider - Proud of his pubic service; we've had 6 years of a President going through on-the-job-training, maybe we could use an insider

Kucinich - Anti-war candidate - Choppy answer; pushing his anti-war position genuinely

Biden - Gaffe-machine - Yes (first laugh-line)

Gravel - Doesn't matter if he gets elected - Scared of the rest of these guys; no nukes

+ Clinton - Unfavorable Republican view - ask them; Health Care, still have the scars from that battle; Republicans are worried, and that is why they are so vitriolic; promotes universal health care, energy independence, climate-change initiatives, corruption of Bush years, internatinoal alliances, not alienations; Serious - good answer

Notes: Clinton given two questions; Gravel is an utter embarrassment

R3 - Domestic Issues
Edwards - Abortion - This decision (the recent late-term abortion SCOTUS decision) shows just how important the Presidency and appointments to SCOTUS are; difficult decision that must be respected

Obama - Abortion (most of America agreed with decision) - would not agree; he would trust women to make the decision; then - really nicely - turned to prevention and other issues that would reduce abortions without bans

Biden - Litmus test on R v. W - no specific test, but nominees must share my values and understand there is a right to privacy; bad decision with dishonest reasoning; the late-term procedure itself is bad, but the decision was bad

Kucinich - Litmus test - yes, but the focus should be on other things: living wage, preventive care is support for life; listen to those opposed to abortion in order to be a healer on the issue; respect and protect women but listen to opposing views

Dodd - Regret voting for Roberts - No; disppointed but no - he didn't do what he said he'd do (respect precedent)

Richardson - Model SC Justice - Byron White (moderator says "alive") - Ruth Bader Ginsberg

Dodd - Model SC Justice - since Brennan is excluded (by moderator); Ruth Bader Ginsberg

Edwards - Model SC Justice - Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Stephen Breyer

Clinton - did govt fail at VT - YES; while respecting gun owners rights, improve gun regulation especially to mentally ill

Richardson - NRA favorite - Protection of gun rights is important in the west; moved to mental health and enforcing background checks

Show of Hands - who has had a gun in the house as an adult: Gravel; Biden; Dodd; Richardson; Kucinich(?!?)

Biden - what could federal govt have done for VT - (I owned a shotgun, not just a handgun); Assault weapons ban should not have been allowed to lapse; close the gun sho loophole; focus on mental illness

Notes: No one really hit a homerun; Obama's not standing out

R4 - Health Care (HC)
Edwards - What taxes will be raised to pay for your HC plan - Repeal the Bush tax cuts on anyone over 200k; I have a specific, different HC plan

Obama - How to pay for plan - (doesn't answer, just discusses plan); Pool to buy into like Congress; must control costs; preventive care; technology; catrostophic coverage

+ Clinton - Pay for plan - (doesn't answer) - Experience of fighting for a plan; Control and decrease costs for all, including those with insurance currently; save monies in the current system before we transform to a new system

Richardson - No taxes? - No - don't want to raise taxes to pay; as Governor deal with this issue every day: 1. Cut existing beuracracy; 2. Share savings throughout system; 3. Prevention; 4. clean up inefficiencies (insitute HC Info System); 5. reinstate Dr./Patient relationships

Biden - NAACP ban on SC due to flag - more important to show of the capabilities of the people of the host historic black college, than to avoid the state

Obama - Conf. flag - Confederate flag belongs in a museum; but there are bigger issues on the table to discuss tonight - black infant mortality rates/poverty; deferred to "Hillary"

Notes: Obama finally warming up; Clinton carries the air of a President; Richardson focusing on specifics all night

Rd5 - Serious Mistake in the Past 4 Years
Gravel - Wouldn't have held the youth of the other candidates againist them

Kucinich - Years ago, fired the Cleveland Police Chief live on local news

+ Clinton - not enough time to list all mistakes; HC message; believing the President was going to go to the UN and listen to inspectors

+ Obama - when first arrived in Senate; left after debate on a law re: Schaivo - should have stayed and had a full debate/vote

Biden - overestimating the competence and underestimating the arrogance of Bush administration

Edwards - Voting for the war; lesson = listen to own judgment

Dodd - Voting for war

Richardson - too impatient, has tried to force changes, including a minimum wage in NM when should have used diplomacy

Rd6 - Miscellaneous
+ Clinton - Amnesty for immigrants - Comprehensive immigration reform including additional enforcement, helping states pay for costs of illegals, get 12MM immigrants out of the shadows so we know who is here, give current residents a chance to pay a fine, pay their taxes, learn English and get in back of the line to become citizens

Biden - Tech degrees/brain drain - Change the way we educate our children; smaller class sizes and better pay for teacher to get better teachers

Dodd - Welfare drug tests - No; over-tested all over; addition is an illness; show respect and compassion

+ Edwards - Oil Comp. windfalls - much is due to demand, we need to focus on transforming that - climate change initiative, cap carbon emmissions, clean energy resources; let's ask America to be patriotic about something other than war

Kucinich - HC premiums - due to For Profit Insurance companies; non-profit HC

Richardson - 1st thing accomplished in office - 1. Get out of Iraq; 2. Energy independence plan like Apollo program; 3. Climate change initiative

Notes: Clinton cruising

Rd 7 - Non-Iraq Foreign Policy
Obama - 3 biggest allies - 1. EU/NATO; 2. Japan; 3. Emerging China; distraction of Iraq ---follow up question - what about Israel - covers on Palestinian quote; strong ally

+ Biden - 3 biggest threats - 1. N. Korea; 2. Iran; 3. Russian/Putin; we need a change in policy - jettison preemption & regime change - we don't need regime change, but conduct change

Gravel - 3 threats - No important enemies; treat the world as equals; not afraid of any nations; military industrial complex

Edwards - Russia, friend or for - they have moved from democracy to autocracy; how does America change the dynamics of the world? Set America as a force of good in the world; lead on education of children of the world; clean water; economic independence

Richardson - 4 time nominee for Nobel Peace Prize, what about Russia - Assess strategy interests: 1. contain the nukes; 2. Humane treatment in Chechnya; 3. develope Russia as a stable source of energy for US; 4. Promote democracy; stubborn is not a foreign policy; fight terrorism and nuclear proliferation

+ Clinton - Giuliani/Dem perception - Disconnect between rhetoric and reality; current administration hypes fear without delivering on promises; our foreign policy under Bush is less stable; this is a Myth they can put to rest

Dodd - Dem perception - Myth; not building international support; problem of stateless terrorism

Hands - Who does NOT believe there is a Global War on Terror - Kucinich/Gravel

Kucinich - move away from Bush's aggressive war; the world is waiting for US leadership

Obama - Terrorist attack 2 cities, what do you do? - 1. Effective emergency response (re: Katrina); 2. Intelligence - cannot allow the world community to be doubtful of our intelligence; 3. Talk to the international community

+ Edwards - Same question - 1. Act swiftly and strongly to hold the culprits responsible; 2. Assess what happened, address DHS; need to use more tools than bombs - work to get the next generation of potential-terrorists on our side

Clinton - Same question - Immediate retaliation - but do not look for other fights which are not ours

Hands - Who would support impeachment of VP Cheney? Kucinich alone

Kucinich - Constitution - Cheney must be held accountable for Iraq and ginning up a war agaisnt Iran; notes that he is the only candidate willing to impeach

Notes: Clinton stumbles for the first time; in both answers here, she is clearly thinking while speaking and not as commanding as previously; Obama's first answer here was poor

Rd 8 Miscellaneous
Dodd - Civil Union vs. Gay Marriage - Supports civil unions; consider what he would want for his own daughters - same rights; yet marriage is distinct due to the tradition

Biden - Hard choices on climate-change - Manhattan project for climate change; "Barak and I" proposal; Car emissions/ethanol/lithium battery technology/cap emmissions now, today; hard choices

Richardson - Cuba - goes back to question about an attack - retaliate mightily, then build coalition; on Cuba, beginning planning for a post-Castro cuba; bring in Cuban-Americans to develop a plan; change policy on family visits; re-evaluate the embargo

Gravel - Nuclear energy - maturation process; back to the war - there has been a mischaracterisation of terrorism - a war won't work; change in foreign policy

+ Obama - what have you done personally for environment - on Earth Day organized volunteers to plant trees (moderator - no, personally, like light bulbs); making an effort to use efficient light bulbs and teach his children of conservation; back to terrorism - terror networks must be hunted and demolished; build alliances (great answer - I didn't get too many notes because I was caught listening - his best of the night)

[Bit of back-and-forth between Kucinich/Obama/Gravel/Obama] - Obama looks Presidential others...not

Edwards - who is your moral leader - thoughtful; cannot identify one person; the Lord who I pray to for forgiveness and counsel; wife - who is my conscience; father - every person is of value

Clinton - Is Wal-Mart good or bad - mixed blessing; it allowed rural America to stretch its dollar; but now it is raising serious questions about corporate accountability - providing HC, discrimination in the work place, work place safety; Bush and Corporate America no longer even see Middle Class America

Biden - Is there a winner on the statge - YES, a bunch of winners; if anyone on the Republican side is wishing for Hillary, they are making a mistake; back to security - for security, specifically in Afghanistan, Darfur, Balkans, have to use force; all the "happy talk" (from Kucinich and Gravel) is unrealisic

Notes: Finally - Obama hits a home-run (about time) he got better and better as things went along; Clinton closed strong; Edwards limped to the finish

Overall Immediate Impressions:

Clinton did great - she was Presidential, composed, and articulate; she stumbled a bit toward the end, but was consistently the strongest candiate on the stage...but she also got the most opportunities

Edwards did well until the very end; he is substantive and charismatic

Richardson really proved himself to me this evening - specifics, strong, bold; the biggest winner of the 2d tier

Obama really warmed up as the debate moved along; started slowly but grew commanding by the end

Biden is just really off the cuff and unrehearsed; probably the funniest, and you can see depth, but it doesn't completely come through

Dodd was essentially invisible

Kucinich towed his standard line, and actually almost looked relatively mainstream due to the man on his political and physical left...

Gravel was a joke, simply did not belong


90 minutes simply isn't enough time for 8 candidates.

Go Hillary!...

It is far too early to either prognosticate or start picking sides in the 2008 Presidential election. Having said that, as candidates begin to emerge, and the buzz begins to build, it is hard (at least for political junkies) not to already start thinking and forming opinions about the race.

Last week, there were two massive announcements related to '08.

On Monday, Barak Obama announced that he is forming a Presidential Exploratory Committee. On Saturday, Hillary Clinton formally announced that she intends to run for the Presidency. Democrats have to be both excited, and a bit apprehensive. Both of these individuals are tremendous candidates for President - they have impeccable resumes, dedication to America, and public service, and real ideas and vision for America. That's more than we've had in a long time. Both, however, also carry significant "electibility" issues with them that generate real causes for concern. For Obama, there is the charge of lack of qualification (although if you compare his resume to W. Bush, Reagan and other past Presidents, he clearly has sufficient credentials), and also the question of whether America will cast Presidential ballots for a minority. Hillary faces the irrational fear and hatred of the extreme right, and similar questions about whether America will vote for a woman. These electibility concerns are valid - especially in light of likely Republican Presidential campaigns by Rudy Giuliani and John McCain.

Regardless, with such impressive Democratic candidates, they cannot help but raise the level of the campaign and encourage progressives everywhere.

My wife and I love both Hillary and Barak Obama. Although it may be too early to be taking sides, it appears as if she is leaning toward supporting Obama, while I'm leaning toward supporting Hillary. But it's still a long time until November 2008. But until then - Go Hillary!!!

Good signs...

A Democrat has not held statewide office in Texas in over a decade. The days of Ann Richards and the Texas Democrats are distant memories.

But, you know, everything old will be new again...

It looks like there are signs of life for the Texas Democratic party. Small signs, to be sure, but indicatations that the party is gaining strength nonetheless.

The Houston Chronicle has two interesting articles today about the Democratic signs of life: Warning for GOP in Harris County and Democrats Turn Dallas County a Shade of Blue.

From the first -

Harris County Democratic and Republican officials have looked at Tuesday's local election results and they agree: The GOP-dominated county government could be recaptured by Democrats as soon as 2008. ...

In an election when many ethnic minority voters didn't vote, Republican judicial candidates on the bottom half of the Harris County ballot won by an average of fewer than four percentage points — 52 percent to 48 percent.

The average margin four years ago was more than nine points.

If minority voters had been energized, as they might be in the 2008 presidential year, it could have been a Democratic sweep, some analysts said.

They point to Dallas County, long a GOP stronghold, where Democrats claimed every countywide seat elected Tuesday. ...

But the demographic trends are long-term: The Hispanic population is booming and the Anglo population is not.

"The Republican Party is not attracting minority voters the way it should. I've been saying this for 10 years," [Republican County Commissioner Steve] Radack said. ...

Rice University political science professor Bob Stein said an immediate effect of Tuesday's local and national results could be interest from talented Democrats who realize they have a legitimate chance to be elected next time around. ...

But the demographic and political trends seem clear.

"Doomsday is coming," said UH political science professor Richard Murray.

This is a good sign for Democrats in Texas and Harris County...but it should be tempered with the caveats suggested in the article - this year in Texas was unique because of the 5-way Gubernatorial race and the national winds of Iraq and Republican corruption impacting so many voters.

Now the Dallas County story -

The home of glitzy restaurants, million-dollar condos and six-figure Neiman Marcus holiday baubles has a new distinction that has nothing to do with its oversupply of Hummers and BMWs.

Dallas County still calls its historic courthouse Old Red, but on Tuesday it went "blue."

A national wave of Democratic voting and changing demographics swept Republicans out of power in the county as the GOP surrendered 42 judgeships, the district's attorney office and the county judge's seat.

"Dallas has become a very competitive two-party county and very sensitive to changes in the national political mood," said Matthew Wilson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University. "The difference in this election was that more Democrats came out and more voted a straight party ticket."

Wilson said demographic changes gradually have been turning the county of 2.3 million residents more Democratic. Hispanics, who locally have traditionally voted Democratic by a two-to-one margin, have continued to move into the city and aging inner-ring suburbs such as Irving, Grand Prairie and Garland.

Meanwhile, white middle-class residents who tend to vote Republican have continued to move to Collin County suburbs such as Plano and McKinney, while middle-class blacks, who lean Democratic, have moved to suburbs such as Lancaster in southern Dallas County.

Finally, he said, urban revitalization in the city center has brought young singles who also tend to vote Democratic.

Cal Jillson, another SMU political scientist, said he and others expected Democrats to slowly gain offices this year, in 2008 and 2010 because of those trends. "Instead, the national trend brought them in all at once," he said. ...

It will take at least one or two more cycles of Democrats holding gains before the county could be called safely Democratic, Wilson said.

More good news. One key thing that both articles address - the long-term story is already written. Demographic changes in Texas are happening - and happening so fast - that over time this state will be turning back to the Democratic party.

Kind of explains the Right's irrational xenophobia.

It is a long-term process, but the Democratic Party is growing at the grassroots level. And - if it's not getting old yet - I want to give another tip-of-the-hat to Howard Dean. This is what the 50-state plan is all about - grow the grassroots party in every state, regardless of how red that state may be. Overtime, those investments are going to pay massive dividends.

Today, Dallas County, tomorrow, Harris, the next - Austin. Texas Democrats are coming back.

A New Direction...

It's been a good night.

Much better night than I expected.

Hopefully, this will indeed be a new direction for America. Maybe we can put behind us the past six disastrous years of the Bush administration.

Montana and Missouri are still out there...but both of them look reasonably good for the Democrats. If so - that's both the House and Senate. Unbelievable.

I don't know if I'll be the first to say it - but Kudos and Congratulations to Howard Dean and the 50 state plan. Governor Dean deserves much if not all of the credit for this landslide Democratic victory. Brilliant strategy, brilliantly executed.

It's been a good night. Now, let's all hope that this indeed portends a New Direction for America.

Lampson for TX-22...

Big step for Nick Lampson in his attempt not only to win TX-22 this year, but to retain the seat going foward - VFW endorses Lampson in District 22 race.

Lampson was originally the big underdog, running against Tom Delay in a heavily Republican district. After Delay's corruption led to an indictment and his subsequent withdrawal from the race, Lampson became the favorite. It is widely expected, however, that Lampson will simply be a temporary seat-filler, until a Republican can run again in 2008.

Maybe not:

The national Veterans of Foreign Wars PAC has endorsed Democrat Nick Lampson in his race for former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's seat, an endorsement that Lampson's campaign says helps debunk claims that he is a liberal.

Lampson's staff has been touting his VFW endorsement and the endorsement of the National Rifle Association to show that the former congressman is a moderate to conservative Democrat in line with voters in this conservative Republican district.

Of course, this is the only other option:

Republican write-in candidate Shelley Sekula-Gibbs doesn't detail her stand on the war, except to say that she supports the president's war on terror and opposes an early withdrawal.To be fair, Sekula-Gibbs entered the race very late, and is simply not qualified for seat.

Go Nick Lampson!!

The key...

Will the Democrats be able to win the Senate in the 2006 midterm elections?

Back on 2-October I suggested that the Democrats would pick up 2 seats in the Senate. Since them, it seems as if Santorum really has lost his seat in Pennsylvania, which would bump the number to three...

But one of those two I was counting back on 2-Oct was Harold Ford Jr. pulling the HUGE upset in picking up a seat in Tennessee. Today, I feel much less confident that Ford will be able to pull that upset off ... but I have become more convinced that if he does win Tennessee, that is a much larger statement about the national scene, and the Democrats may be able to come up with the other three victories and take the Senate.

Let me explain...

First - why am I less confident that Ford is going to win Tennesse? Simple answer - typical Republican gutter-tactics - see the following two pieces: More on the Tennessee Mudslide; A Contentious Campaign in a Battleground State. Consider:

RUSSERT: Ken Mehlman, the Republican candidate in Tennessee has asked that you take that ad off the air, that it is over the top. Former Republican Senator William Cohen says it’s, quote, “overt racist appeal.”Will you take that ad down?

MEHLMAN: Tim, I don’t have the authority to take it down or put it up. It’s what called an independent expenditure.The way that process works under the campaign reform laws is I write a check to an independent individual. And that person’s responsible for spending money in certain states. Tennessee is one of them.

I’ll tell you this, though. After the comments by Mr. Corker and by former Senator Cohen, I looked at the ad. I don’t agree with that characterization of it. But it’s not an ad that I have authority over. I saw it for the first time the same time that they did.

RUSSERT: The whole idea of having a blond white woman winking at a black Congressman, the notion of interracial sex is not in your mind racist?

MEHLMAN: I think that that ad talks about a number of people on the street talking about things that Mr. Ford allegedly has either done or a proposal he has for the future. I think it’s a fair ad.

Disgusting. Or this:

[Republican candidate] Corker depicts himself as more "senatorial" than Ford but is running an almost entirely negative campaign at this point. He depicts Ford as a smooth-talking city slicker who has deeper roots in Washington, D.C. -- where Ford lived for part of his childhood -- compared with Corker, the self-described "real Tennessean" in the race.

The hardest blows have come from the national GOP. The National Republican Senatorial Committee ridicules Ford's expensive tastes on a "Fancy Ford" Web site, and the Republican National Committee is airing a controversial new ad that features a scantily clad blonde who says she met Ford at a Playboy party. "Harold, call me!" the woman chirps.

Ugh. When you have no ideas, you resort to slime. Unfortunately, these days slime is terribly effective, and such a dirty, nasty, negative campaign could very easily turn this campaign around in the final couple of weeks. It's a shame that a candidate with leadership, vision, and exuding confidence in Tennessee and America would be torpedoed by dirty-Republican tactics...but that's the way it goes.

But, Ford is a great candidate, and will keep fighting to the end of this thing - bringing lots of Tennesseans around:

John Layne is a 57-year-old white Republican with a long gray beard, no job and advancing emphysema. He arrived an hour early to hear Harold Ford Jr. speak in this struggling mountain town.

"Oh, sure, there's some prejudice," Layne said as he contemplated casting a ballot for a black man. "I wouldn't want my daughter marrying one." But he's more concerned about rising medical costs: When it comes to voting, "you gotta look at the person, not the color."

While visiting a diner in Oak Ridge, Corker stopped to shake hands with Linda Ramsey, who was having lunch with her husband, Dale, and daughter Kelcee. Ramsey responded with a big smile when Corker asked for her vote. But when he moved to the next table, she conceded she was leaning toward Ford.

Although she supported Corker in the primary, Ramsey explained, "all he wants to do is point fingers. Ford is stepping up above it."

If Ford can pull this off in Tennessee, then nationwide, Democrats have a real chance. To be able to fend off the dirty-Republican tactics would be indicative of a national wave of support for the New Direction of the Democrats, and a latent disgust of these typical Republican tactics.

Go Harold Ford Jr.!!

Securing the Common Good...

Clinton Reflects on His 2 Terms and Hits Hard at Republicans
Clinton Comeback

Fifteen years ago, then-Presidential-candidate, Bill Clinton went to Georgetown University and delivered a speech about a New Covenant between the people and their government. In that speech fifteen years ago, he said:

People once looked at the president and the Congress to bring us together, to solve problems, to make progress. Now, in the face of massive challenges, our government stands discredited, our people are disillusioned. There’s a hole in our politics where our sense of common purpose used to be.

Yesterday, now-former-President, Bill Clinton went back to Georgetown and delivered a speech intending to put the message of progressive politics under a unifying theme that the American people - voters - can understand:

This sort of politics — striving for a common good — for me stands in stark contrast to both the political and governing philosophy of the leadership in Washington today and for the last six years.

Striving for the common good...man, it seems like it's been a long time since a political leader would talk about something like that. At least six years, I'd say. A Common Good - it is so encouraging to hear a politician talk about something higher than partisan politics - working together for American goals:

The country has been well served by its progressive and conservative traditions. We understand that campaigns will be heated, but we want it to be connected somehow to the real lives of real people, to the aspirations of ordinary Americans.

Hopefully, the Clinton's message yesterday will be studied by Democrats running for office all of the nation. The last thing that we need is for the Democrats to actually squeak into office in these mid-term elections and be just as partisan, just as corrupt, and just as unwilling to do the work of the American people as the Republicans currently are. We need to accomplish the goals of the people:

We believe in mutual responsibility. They believe that, in large measure, people make or break their own lives and you’re on your own,” he explained in today’s speech. “We believe in striving, at least, to cooperate with others because we think that there are very few problems in the world we can solve on our own. They favor unilateralism whenever possible, and cooperation when it’s unavoidable.

For some - completely unknown - reason the current Bush administration, and the Republican party in general, still blames Clinton for every issue that comes before them - North Korea, the Foley scandal, terrorism, etc. Such 'blame-Clinton' tactics are nakedly irresponsible... but they are also poor politics. Clinton is about as popular as he has ever been, and his popularity is only on the rise:

When Clinton left office, his approval numbers in the Gallup poll were at a low 39 percent in early 2001. Today they are 20 points higher, and they have risen steadily as President Bush’s numbers have dropped.

Sure, blaming Clinton may still stir the rabid, right-wing base of the party... but that is the opposite of reaching out to the common good. And it's wholly ineffective. Weeks ago, Clinton was ambushed while doing an interview for Fox News - and he took much criticism when he actually fought back. But that moment - the moment when a Democrat actually fought back against Fox News and, as an extention, right-wing talk radio - has been a rallying cry not only for progressives, but also for the average American. We saw someone stand up against the propaganda and lies spewed constantly from the right-wing media. That media, Fox News and talk-radio, made such a big deal about it because it was terrifying for them. Because the people understood where it came from - for too long, the party in power has irresponsibly attacked the left and Clinton himself, while being entirely ineffective in their governing. Republicans may well be experts at winning elections - but they have utterly failed at governing.

In another recent speech, Clinton said the following:

Democrats, Clinton said, have a “big responsibility.” “Forget about politics,” he whispered. “Just go out and find somebody and look them dead in the eye and say, ‘You know this isn’t right’… We can do better, and this year, it’s a job that Democrats have to do alone.”

We, the people, can do better. It's time for us to return to a focus on the Common Good.

Related prior posts:
Skewed Perspective...
The Democrat's Problem...
Positive Signs...

Skewed Perspective...

Why the Democrats Are Worrying About Money

Congressional Democrats are concerned, and even feuding, about whether they will have enough cash to take back the House this fall

It is frustrating to read this article in Time from yesterday. It is readily apparent that many levels - some of the highest levels - of the Democratic party really aren't concentrating on the core, the fundamental issues that mean the most to the America. Instead, they are caught up in short-term quick-fixes and victories. Has a short-term victory ever been anything but hollow? The following snippets (along with that subtitle above) worry me...

Rahm Emanuel, the Chicago congressman in charge of getting House Democrats elected, has already been in a months-long feud with Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee.... [N]ow Emanuel is expanding his fight with other groups in his own party, blasting George Soros and MoveOn.org...

That's what's going to energize the public to support the Democratic party - infighting. Little minds think short-term Mr. Emanuel...

Despite the critique by some Democrats that in 2002 and 2004 the party lost because they didn't have a clear message, Democratic officials are much less concerned about the party's proposals than about money and mobilizing voters.

This is the key question - what has been the fundamental problem of the Democratic party for the last 20 plus years? Is it really money and mobilization? If you ask me, the answer is clearly no. The problem is message - for some reason the Democratic party has been unwilling to clearly - and unapologetically - define a progressive vision for America. Without such a vision, there is NO REASON for people to vote Democratic. Money and mobilization are of course important - but without a message, those things are meaningless.

But the agenda [setting for a 2006 Campaign platform of 'A New Direction for America'] satisfied the Democrats' overriding goal: offer something that didn't give the Republicans much to shoot at, but wouldn't allow the GOP to say its rivals have no ideas. ... Democrats say, that like 1994, an anti-incumbency feeling exists all over their country, and they need to keep voters focused on what President Bush and the Republicans have done wrong. So Democrats eschewed a big health care plan, for example, because they worried it would reinforce the Republican critique of Democrats as the "tax and spend" party. "Eighty percent of our message is negative," one party strategist said.

I really like the idea of A New Direction for America - as long as there is an actual direction - not just "anything different that what's going on now." Admittedly, anything different than the Bush administration and this Republican congress would undoubtedly be better - but that is not enough to galvanize the political landscape and really motivate the American public to embrace a Democratic vision. That's what needs to happen. The fact that this 2006 agenda is "safe" and won't give the Republicans something to shoot at is foolhardy. The Democratic party needs to make the Republicans "shoot at" full healthcare for all children under 18 in America. Because they will look ridiculous when they do. People want change, they want an actual new direction - they don't want something that can't be shot at (whatever that means).

Back to Dean and the DNC - I think I've said it before, but I am a supporter of Dean's 50 state initiative. Progressive populism is not, and should not be, for only 51% of America. The whole idea of progressive populism is that it reaches out to the entire nation as a whole - the rural southeasterner, the midwestern manufacturer, the Pacific coast entreprenuer, and the white-collar New England-er. Folks in Mississippi should be voting Democrat because it is the Democratic party that is going to raise the minimum wage, provide health care for their children, and provide support and jobs for rebuilding the gulf coast. Folks in Wyoming should vote Democrat because it is the Democratic party that is protecting the nation's natural resources and providing support to farmers and landowners. The very idea of the Democratic party is that it should be everywhere.

If it takes a few years - and a few election cycles that do not generate immediate, short-term results - to build such a national Democratic party, that is exactly what should be done. In my opinion the goal of the Democratic leadership is far to small if it is only 15 seats in 2006. The goal should be something like 75 additional seats by 2012. They should carry progressive populism to every district in America.


Prior posts of note:
Positive signs...
Now this I like...
The Democrat's Problem...

Courage...

It is never easy to admit you were wrong. It is especially difficult when you are a public figure, and your decision led to major policy directions.

But that is exactly what two courageous politicians (when is the last time you read those words together???) have done in the past week.

First, former Senator and vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards had the courage to say the stunning words, "I was wrong." After admitting his mistake in voting to authorize the President to use force in Iraq, Edwards went on to suggest a three part plan for salvaging the situation:

1. "[W]e need to remove the image of the imperialist America from the landscape of Iraq." - how do we do this? Edwards suggests that first, we get "American contractors who have taken unfair advantage of the turmoil in Iraq" to leave. "Return of the work to Iraqi businesses, would be a real statement about our hopes for the new nation." Secondly, we need to demonstrate to the world that we do not intend to be there forever. "We've reached the point where the large number of our troops in Iraq hurts, not helps, our goals." After the next round of elections early next year, we should begin a redeployment of a major portion of the troops.

2. Committment to more effective training of Iraqi security forces. This would include a "clear plan for training and hard deadlines for certain benchmarks to be met." And as these hard deadlines are met, more US troops will withdraw.

3. Actual, serious, committed diplomacy. There needs to be a unified international front for Iraq to succeed.

Courage to admit error, and a plan to go forward and correct the mistakes. Bravo to John Edwards for making a stand.

Secondly, Rep. John Murtha, top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee and former war hawk, today held a press conference where he declared, "It is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering, the future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region." And understand, Rep. Murtha is no lightweight when it comes to matters of the military. "Murtha has earned bipartisan respect for his grasp of military issues over three decades in Congress. . . . First elected to Congress in 1974, Murtha is known as an ally of uniformed officers in the Pentagon and on the battlefield. The perception on Capitol Hill is that when the congressman makes a statement on military issues, he's talking for those in uniform. Known to shun publicity, Murtha said he was standing up because he had a constitutional and moral obligation to speak for the troops."

Bravo to Rep. Murtha who had the courage and strength to endure the barrage of attacks he surely knew would come when he decided to make this statement. Radical Republicans - much more concerned about politics and elections than about American lives or America's image abroad - have already unleashed a barrage of attacks upon him and his patriotism...I wonder how many of these new chicken-hawk critics have ever served and earned two purple hearts as Murtha has?

But Murtha did have a response to vice-President Dick Cheney who in a disgusting display of partisan politics above national good, pulled out the tired old attack slogans, "The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out," and "[W]e're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history." Mr. Cheney significantly failed to point out that it was the Bush Administration's "cynical and pernicious falsehoods" that led us into this occupation, and it is their attempt to "rewrite history" had has the Administration up to their ears in investigations and criticism. But Murtha spoke to the true nature of Cheney, and this administration. "Murtha, a Marine intelligence officer in Vietnam, angrily shot back at Cheney: 'I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.'" Well said. And courageous.

And finally, even a Republican got in on the courageous act today. Although Cheney's comments included calling criticism of the mishandling of the run-up to war, "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city", Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, and decorated Vietnam veteran, stated, "The Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them. To question your government is not unpatriotic -- to not question your government is unpatriotic."

It is too bad this administration and right-wing leadership is too busy covering up their mistakes, or blaming others for those mistakes, to have the courage to take a stand for America.

Bravo to John Edwards, Rep. Murtha, and Sen. Hagel for having the courage of conviction - and letting their voices be heard. Let's just hope more follow.