As a proud grandmother, I have been thinking about the impact of this election on America's children. Normally, such a thought might be taken for granted; or else it would appear to be a "no brainer;" but not this year. For starters, just consider a few issues that Obama wants to talk about: global warming, health care, and education (including a program, attacked by his opponents to help protect young children from sexual predators). The McCain ticket doesn't focus on any of these things.
From the Republicans, we hear a great deal about Family Values, and it is difficult to imagine that anyone opposes this concept. However, if we examine the conduct of this year's nominees in the context of values that most Americans would say they hold, we are presented with a stark contrast.
While so far managing to avoid prosecution for any number of illegal acts, Karl Rove continues to insinuate himself into the electoral process -- advising John McCain, writing OpEds in The Wall Street Journal and appearing as a political analyst on Fox Noise. But if that were all, Democrats might be less worried. In fact, it appears that Rove's very effective election thefts in 2000 and 2004 are likely to be repeated. Employing many of the old tricks - and a few new ones - Rove and his minions are at it again; and unless some challenges are successful, the Rove cancer on our electoral system is about to metastasize.
Some of you may remember this video of the anti-war rally at Sacred Heart that I posted a while ago. I also posted the video on my facebook page. On February 29th, I received this letter from facebook:
Hello,
We have removed your video entitled "McCain Campaign Event 2/3/08" uploaded at 3:15pm February 3rd, 2008. We did this because we learned that your video might include copyrighted material owned by a third party, such as a video clip or background audio.
If you are the copyright owner, or have permission from the rights holder to upload and distribute this material on Facebook, you may file a counter notice of alleged infringement by following the link below.
Please note that if you re-upload this video without filing a counter notice, or if you upload another video that infringes on the rights of a third party, our system will again remove the content. This could cause your access to the Facebook Video application to be disabled, or your Facebook account to be disabled...
The Facebook Team
copyright@facebook.com
The first thing I did in response, was to send the youtube version of the video to Lookout Records (the owners of the copyrighted material). I did this on March 1st. After some time, I filed a counter notification with facebook. I stated that I found it questionable that Lookout Records would flag the facebook video but allow the youtube version to remain. I also stated that I believed the McCampaign most likely flagged the video in an attempt to censor unfavorable content. Today, I noticed that facebook had put the video back up on my profile.
In celebration of this small victory, I am reposting this video here (and many other places, feel free to embed it wherever you would like). While I cannot prove that the McCain campaign flagged this video, it seems pretty likely. So, to them I say, bring it on you warmongering bastards!
Depending on how things go, the Democratic nomination could very well to go either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in August. Both represent "the great ideological movements of the last century--civil rights or women's rights." (quote from NY Times, 1/13/08)
I strongly recommend reading it.....its excellent, and even touches upon Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Frederick Douglass, both abolitionists, but they disagreed on who should get the vote first, women or blacks.
My take? I like both candidates, but on a personal level, I would love to see Hillary as our country's first woman president! If she doesn't, what woman will in the future? The office of the President is the last (and the hardest) glass ceiling to smash through for women. While I believe Barack can be a role model for many, he has plenty of time & opportunity to run for the presidency....he's young! However, anything can happen before August, remember that......
A dedicated, life-long Democrat, I am not alone in being thoroughly disgusted with my Party. We won the 2006 elections but might as well have lost: Congress continues to enable the Bush-Cheney crime family in all of its worst endeavors; and, increasingly, it appears that Democratic voters may fall into line and nominate the right-wing's first choice (and best hope) for our standard bearer in 2008. How dumb can we get?
As I wrote earlier [in "Not Hillary"], Republicans are licking their chops at the chance to batter Hillary Clinton a second time around; in fact, they aren't even waiting until she's been nominated. The Republican debates already have produced numerous examples of the stampede to beat up the presumed Democratic front-runner; and the media, predictably, has followed suit by beating up on her Democratic challengers. When I mentioned recently to a largely apolitical friend - and registered Republican - that Rupert Murdoch has been making large contributions to Hillary's campaign, he said: Well, her candidacy represents Republicans' best chance of retaking the White House in 2008.
As if the prospect of a Republican victory in 2008 were not enough, there are many more reasons for Democratic voters to hold their representatives accountable for the jobs they were elected to do. In this context, it should be reasonable to expect any Democratic Presidential candidate to demonstrate a willingness to address the country's most important challenges. After two terms of Bush-Cheney, the country's "To Do list" has become a very long one - including numerous intractable problems. I have generated a Starter List below, which includes just a few of the most serious challenges we face; it is by no means comprehensive . . .
It's official. When asked by Norway's NKR Television how winning the Nobel Prize would affect his political future, Gore replied:"I don't have plans to be a candidate again so I don't really see it in that context at all."
:-(
I hope to G-d this means we aren't stuck with Hillary.
This represents a joint effort by ANN GALLOWAY and ROBIN WINICK. The first of two posts about AIPAC, this piece will deal primarily with domestic issues; a subsequent discussion on global impact will follow in a few days.
It has become dangerous to suggest that AIPAC may be exerting undue influence on both US and Israeli policies. Critics have been accused of anti-Semitism; and politicians who hope to remain in office (as well as those who seek political office) have been silenced by the enormous influence that AIPAC wields - including its ability to direct the use of mega dollars, either to support or defeat those it targets.
For the record, both authors of this piece are Jewish women, and both have been to Israel; one's daughter studied at Tel Aviv University; the other has worked for a major American Jewish organization and has taught in two Jewish day schools. Both strongly believe in the importance of the existence of the State of Israel. However, they also believe that just as our country's founders would turn over in their graves to see what the right wing has done to compromise our democracy, so Israel's founders would be appalled at the damage its extremists have done to compromise the very existence and safety of Israel's citizens.
This represents a joint effort by ANN GALLOWAY and ROBIN WINICK. The first of two posts about AIPAC, this piece will deal primarily with domestic issues; a subsequent discussion on global impact will follow in a few days.
It has become dangerous to suggest that AIPAC may be exerting undue influence on both US and Israeli policies. Critics have been accused of anti-Semitism; and politicians who hope to remain in office (as well as those who seek political office) have been silenced by the enormous influence that AIPAC wields - including its ability to direct the use of mega dollars, either to support or defeat those it targets.
For the record, both authors of this piece are Jewish women, and both have been to Israel; one's daughter studied at Tel Aviv University; the other has worked for a major American Jewish organization and has taught in two Jewish day schools. Both strongly believe in the importance of the existence of the State of Israel. However, they also believe that just as our country's founders would turn over in their graves to see what the right wing has done to compromise our democracy, so Israel's founders would be appalled at the damage its extremists have done to compromise the very existence and safety of Israel's citizens.
The second of three Spring 2007 DFA Trainings is online – "Building Progressive Coalitions," by SEIU's Ben Monterroso. There's a PDF slideshow with an accompanying MP3 from the DFA conference call.
OSHA actually [sent out] 14,200 letters, which would average out to be 284 workplaces per state. However, in Connecticut, there were 463 dangerous workplaces identified.
(By the way, even though I'm a day late in mentioning it, there's a Majikthise pledge drive on - click through for a picture you'll probably enjoy, and chip in a few bucks to help Lindsay pay the bills.)
I try to avoid writing about the 2008 presidential race, but this is totally worth it: Disco Rudy!
Is Senate President Don Williams running for Governor? Ken Dixon thinks so. Also, a great line:
If you want a job in state government, it's not enough to just be from Waterbury anymore.
The (white) Evangelical movement splits over global warming: the politically-minded leadership is opting to ignore the crisis in favor of fixating on sexual issues, while the grassroots membership is starting to ask for some real action.
Did anyone else notice that Media Matters and Hillary Clinton bought ads on the site?
Post what you're reading in the comments, or just say hello to this week's new kids: Mike Stark, ElanaDMI, jodo201, jabborags, pitin, AThomas, HarryRG, brendanl79, polizeros, Matthew, unbelievable, conflated, dorsky, ferd, YoungDem, baldyoda54, ssara1817o, samiam, Lindy, and jillmarienyc.
An op-ed from October 2005 from potential 4th CD candidate Jim Himes, for those interested in a general overview of Citizen Himes' outlook on national politics and policy.
Out of the Dark: Time for Democrats to Lead
By Jim Himes
Chairman, Greenwich Democratic Town Committee
This is a trying time to be a Democrat. The Republican leadership's five-year run of willful incompetence and moral vacuity has done real and lasting damage to America's institutions, values and reputation. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party persistently refuses to chart a better course.
One of the weird and wonderful things about Americans is our enduring belief in the promise and achievability of bigger and better things. We are uncomfortable with pessimism and negativity. We don't like complainers. But even as the harsh judgment of history settles onto the Republican regime--in a moment crying out for ideas rooted in our love of promise--the Democratic Party is simply crying out.
We Democrats face a stark choice. Either develop and promote a Democratic narrative for a bigger and better America, or remain marginalized and tacitly complicit in the dismantling of a great nation.
The key to a new Democratic narrative lies in a fundamental weakness of Republican ideology. At the very heart of American conservatism is the premise that we owe no responsibility to ourselves as a nation. The Republican utopia is one where Americans are unbothered by the reminders of collective responsibility: taxes, environmental regulation, the presence of the needy, the commonwealth of public parks, public schools and public endeavor.
The problem with this premise is that it is not true. It neither survives historical scrutiny nor resonates with our aspirational character. Those finest moments in American history: the struggle for independence, emancipation, the triumphs over fascism and Communism, civil rights, these were moments of improbable ambition and sacrifice in which the betterment of the nation had urgent primacy over individual interest.
Even that engine of our tremendous wealth, capitalism-which some mistakenly consider a manifestation of unbridled individualism--is, in fact, a hothouse flower which survives only because we collectively assent to laws, regulations, fiat money and a thousand other compromises of our individual liberty to the collective good.
The Democratic narrative must assert the central truth denied by Republican ideology: that America is at its best when it sets aside division and prejudice to pursue improbably ambitious goals of opportunity and justice, and when its citizens sacrifice to achieve those goals. Three are particularly critical: superb education, the alleviation of poverty and an ideals-driven engagement with the world.
As Republicans collapse the discussion of education into shrill demands for testing, the Democrats should focus on retooling the entire educational system into one that demands that every American child reach his or her fullest potential. That we fall so short of this goal in a nation of great wealth is both morally reprehensible and a threat to that wealth.
Our underlying national strength is creativity and innovation. Americans with inadequate education will never develop products that compete with those emerging from Bangalore and Beijing and will be at the mercy of cheaper foreign workers or stuck in dead-end jobs. They will not be middle class.
Fixing our educational system will involve demanding flexibility and an uncontemplated degree of accountability from educators in exchange for a level of resources and societal respect they are not currently afforded. We will finally reflect our values and our regard for the future when teacher salaries are no longer rounding errors on the salaries of financiers, lawyers and entertainers.
Getting our system of education right will go a long way to achieving what should be the second pillar of the Democratic narrative: addressing the problem of persistent poverty. Katrina's aftermath reminded us that many Americans have been left utterly behind. Economic growth, private charity and government programs have failed to address their plight.
While acknowledging that economic growth and private charity are important, Democrats must not shrink from the fact that reducing poverty in America will be a major government undertaking. We know we can be successful because we have done it before. The Great Society programs of the 1960s were hardly models of efficiency, but they cut the American poverty rate from 22% in 1960 to less than 12% in 1972-that's more than 15 million people lifted out of poverty, simply because it was a national priority.
Getting serious about alleviating poverty is right in principle. But it would also afford the Democratic party the standing to retake the moral power of religion from the religious right. "As ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me" is a clear and powerful demand, and could perhaps reassume its place at the core of "family values".
Finally, the Democratic narrative must address the concern that has shaped American politics since 9/11: security. The resistance of medieval autocrats to enlightened modernity is roiling the Islamic world as it did the West centuries ago. In this respect, the awful regimes of Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Egypt are on the same side as the terrorists who would destroy them. America is alone on the side of enlightened modernity, a hostage to oil in a region otherwise best ignored.
The problem is that decades of coddling viciously anti-democratic regimes, and more recent missteps like Abu Ghraib, have utterly undermined our credibility as a proponent for liberal democracy in the region, leaving us lonely and exposed.
The Middle East, and our own security, will improve when we act on the fact that our Arab allies in the region are part of the problem and demand change. Only then will we have the credibility and local support necessary to win the struggle against Islamic extremists.
A Democratic narrative would of course say much more. It would say more about other issues central to justice and opportunity: health care, preserving privacy, restoring fiscal sanity, and pulling money out of politics. And it would probably say less about issues such as gay marriage that Republican tacticians use to promote division. It would be improbable and perhaps impractical. It would be over-ambitious and demand real national sacrifice. Much like all of the finest moments in our 230-year history.
Interesting. No calls for dismissal. Good enough that the candidate spoke his mind and that intolerance would not be tolerated in his campaign.
These look like serious folks. Their voting guide is front and center, and they pride themselves on grassroots action. Not sure how influential they are, but this makes for a nice headline should it get picked up. I found it via Raw Story.
"Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good condemns these and all religiously intolerant remarks. We accept Senator Edwards' assurances that he too was offended by comments made by recently-hired staffers and that religious intolerance has no place in his campaign. Catholics comprise more than one quarter of the U.S. public, and neither John Edwards nor any other candidate can afford to take this constituency for granted."
"We hope this unfortunate incident will initiate a deeper conversation on the part of all presidential candidates regarding the broad range of issues and values of primary importance to the Catholic community, including the Iraq War, a concern for the poor, human life and dignity, the availability of health care, and a commitment to the common good."
I imagine you and your staff have followed the Edwards/blogger staff controversy pretty closely. In the end, Senator Edwards did the right thing and stood by his staffers and, by extension, the netroots. The netroots is a constituency of dedicated activists who fight for Democratic success night and day. They deserve support from all Democratic presidential candidates. I say "support" because it's all too easy for established political figures to throw their base under the bus for personal gain. The last thing our party needs is for a presidential candidate to Sister Souljah the netroots to appease the likes of Bill Donohue and Michelle Malkin.
I'm writing to you today to ask that you pledge to stand by the netroots throughout your presidential campaign. There are a few simple things you can do to make and honor that pledge.
1. Pledge to never use a Democratic opponents' blog staffer's past writings as fuel for attacking that candidate. What someone wrote before they joined a campaign should be outside the discussion of ideas during the primary. It's in every Democratic contenders' interests to keep it this way during the primary.
2. Pledge to stand by your staff and the netroots base in the face of any attack campaign on them by radical right wing activists. The netroots are your base, your voter pool. Partisans like Bill Donohue would never, ever ask his supporters to vote for you. The priority for honoring these two groups' concerns should be self-evident.
3. Publicly condemn the attacks authored by Bill Donohue's Catholic League on Senator Edwards' bloggers. This election is too important to be decided on through debates about relatively low-level personnel decisions.
I recognize that this may seem like a lot to ask of a presidential candidate following many days of blogger-related controversy. But I believe that you can offer leadership by setting a tone of civility for the Democratic primary. The respect that is needed now is not just for your fellow candidates, as I am sure you maintain collegial relationships with them, but for the base of activists who will not stop working until one of you is elected president.
Many bloggers will come to your side over the coming months. Will you come to our side today?
Well, it took more than 24 hours, but he seems to have made the right move in the end. And he needs our support. From an email (more here and at the Edwards blog):
EDWARDS STATEMENT ON CAMPAIGN BLOGGERS AMANDA MARCOTTE AND MELISSA McEWEN
Chapel Hill, North Carolina - The statements of Senator John Edwards, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen in reference to their work as independent bloggers before joining the Edwards campaign are below.
Senator John Edwards:
"The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwen's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word. We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in."
Amanda Marcotte:
"My writings on my personal blog, Pandagon on the issue of religion are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics. My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact."
Melissa McEwen:
"Shakespeare's Sister is my personal blog, and I certainly don't expect Senator Edwards to agree with everything I've posted. We do, however, share many views - including an unwavering support of religious freedom and a deep respect for diverse beliefs. It has never been my intention to disparage people's individual faith, and I'm sorry if my words were taken in that way."
The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word. We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.
American Research Group just came out with three 2008 Connecticut polls, for the Democratic and Republican primaries as well as a hypothetical Hillary-McCain general election. Interesting numbers? Hillary is running very, very strong, Dodd runs a distant second but is still ahead of both Obama and Edwards, and McCain is perhaps doing worse than one would expect (he won the 2000 CT primary, after all). (Update: Shays is saying he will support The Escalator, McCain, in 2008.)
MLN is powered by