Summertime or Election Time Blues?

Thank you Andrew Heller (Flint Journal columnist) for diagnosing what ails me. It turns out I'm suffering from "Election Fatigue Syndrome."

"Election Fatigue Syndrome?"

"It's going around. We start to see a few cases as much as two years before a presidential election but by the time the election rolls around it's nearly epidemic. The symptoms include, as you described, general fatigue and stress, which is brought on by too much election coverage and analysis."

"But the upchucking?"

"Well, you also have a touch of both John McCain pneumonia and the Barack Obama flu. The symptoms are nausea and the inability to stomach any more malarkey, juvenile name-calling or empty promises."

"Is it bad, doc?"

"Oh, it's bad, all right. But it's not fatal to humans, although it has been known to be fatal to TV sets. We're seeing a lot of shoes and remote controls embedded in TV screens right now."

"So what do I do?"

"There's not much you can do, I'm afraid. Short of an official election season, there's no known cure for Election Fatigue Syndrome. The best I can tell you is to turn off your TV set until Nov. 5."

Cold turkey? Now? No way, doc, but I promise to avoid Fox News and ABC between now and the election, and limit my time watching television, especially those commercials aimed at people who vote based on sound bites.

If you're also suffering from Election Fatigue Syndrome, take a break and read a few of my posts over at Blogging for Michigan. I can't promise they won't make you sick, but they just might enlighten you!

Here's a few to get you started:

Can GM be saved?

Republicans and facts don't mix

McCain's jealousy isn't attractive in a senator, let alone a president

The American Dream is trickling away

McCain is a dandy dress in his $520 shoes

McCain's message to NAACP was a fakeout

Should we throw a pity party for McCain?

Poor John McCain. It's no secret he has a "lack of enthusiasm" problem. For example, while Obama was overseas drawing crowds wherever he went, McCain was in Scranton, Pennsylvania drawing flies small turnouts.

According to a video report posted by Scranton, Pennsylvania's Times-Leader, John McCain's town hall event in Wilkes-Barre earlier today featured an underwhelming turnout -- more than half the seats were empty. About seven hundred folks showed up -- a decent sized crowd, perhaps, but it left nine hundred seats empty.

Contrast that to Obama's visit to Wilkes-Barre in April, when more than two thousand people attended and the fire department had to turn people away.

Obama isn't McCain's only problem. Republican Ron Paul is generating quite a bit of enthusiasm among his followers too.

Ron Paul, the former Republican presidential candidate, and his followers have been making plans for their own mini convention when his party gathers in St. Paul to nominate Senator John McCain. Except the Paul-ite gathering is no longer so mini.

Due to popular demand, as the saying goes, Mr. Paul had to scrap plans to hold his event at the nearly 15,000-capacity Williams Arena at the University of Minnesota. Instead, his “Rally for Liberty” will move to the Target Center in Minneapolis, which can hold up to 18,000.

To add insult to injury, Grover Norquist is scheduled to appear at the event. Hmm...Norquist recently said he was happy with McCain, although it's well-known he's been a big critic of him in the past.

Norquist has regularly denounced McCain as a fraud, a flip-flopper, and, on one occasion, a nut job.

Of course, there was no love on McCain's side either. He's condemned Norquist as corrupt and a shill for dictators, and McCain has even refused to sign the Americans for Tax Reform Pledge.

So, even though the two men are telling the public they're BFFs, it sure sounds like Norquist is less enthusiastic about McCain than he's led us to believe. I almost feel sorry for old John McCain - almost.

Failing economy is a health threat

The high gas prices and stagflation conditions in this country are making it difficult for people to buy medicine.

In an ominous sign for drug makers, the number of prescriptions dispensed by pharmacies in the U.S. is growing at its worst rate in at least a decade as consumers are squeezed by both a troubled economy and the growing burden of out-of-pocket health-care costs.

According to the WSJ Blog, sales volume is expected to be down, and a drug retailing analyst at Lehman Brothers told them, “I don’t think you would have seen it this bad ever.”

Ever. That's a pretty strong word, and it indicates just how bad conditions are for average Americans when they have to resort to cutting back on needed medicines.

An April poll from the Kaiser foundation (online here) found that 23% of patients didn’t fill a prescription in the last year because of cost, up from 20% in 2005; 19% split pills or skipped doses, up from 16% in 2005.

And it's not just prescriptions people are cutting back on. According to Kaiser:

More than four in ten (42 percent) say that in the past year, they or a family member have done at least one of the following because of the cost: postponed getting needed health care (29 percent), skipped a recommended test or treatment (24 percent), not filled a prescription (23 percent), cut pills in half or skipped doses of a medicine (19 percent), or had problems getting mental health care (8 percent). Among those who report taking one of these actions, two-thirds (66 percent) say their medical condition got worse as a result. [emphasis mine]

That's not surprising when you consider that people are cutting back on drugs for chronic conditions, such as high blood pressure, which increases a person's risk of having a heart attack or stroke.

One in four people now cite paying for health care as a serious problem, 47 million Americans are uninsured and another 25 million are underinsured. There's little argument that the next president needs to tackle health care reform, but what that reform accomplishes and how many people it helps depends on who gets elected. Or, as this blogger puts it:

The difference between the elephant and the donkey can perhaps be best summarized in two slogans.

For McCain, it might be “More expensive, less coverage.”

For Obama “Coverage just like I have, for only a hundred billion.”

One hundred billion to ensure people get the health care they need? That's a deal compared to the $10 billion we spend every month in Iraq and the $300 billion the government plans on lending to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at below market rates.

McCain, you can't have my social security

In case you haven't been paying attention to the stock market, this will make you sit up and take notice. (my emphasis)

Stocks struggled Monday at the end of the worst June for the S&P 500 and the Dow industrials since the Great Depression, amid rocketing oil prices and ongoing financial market woes.

How's your 401K doing? Thank heavens we still have social security to depend on in our old age - today. If McCain wins the election, all bets are off. McCain recently told the Wall Street Journal that "as part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it - along the lines of what President Bush proposed."

I thought McCain wasn't McSame? He sure does embrace a lot of Bush's failed policies for someone who claims he's a maverick.

On the other hand, Sen. Obama isn't afraid to be a straight talker:

Well let me be clear: privatizing Social Security was a bad idea when George W. Bush proposed it. It's a bad idea today. It would eventually cut guaranteed benefits by up to 50%. It would cost a trillion dollars that we don't have to implement on the front end, permanently elevating our debt. And most of all, it would gamble the retirement plans of millions of Americans on the stock market. That's why I stood up against this plan in the Senate, and that's why I won't stand for it as President.

You can read more about McCain's support for privatizing social security here and here (YouTube video).

Millions of Americans depend entirely on social security in their old age, yet McCain wants to gamble with it. That's because McCain has never had to worry about money, as Joe Conason recently pointed out in the New York Observer:

As one of the wealthiest men in the Senate, thanks to the highly profitable liquor company bequeathed to him and his wife years ago, Mr. McCain faces no economic difficulty. He never has to worry about how he will afford retirement or the value of his assets, which is why risky schemes like privatization look so brilliant to him. But in the coming campaign, he may find that working families have no desire to turn Social Security over to the same companies now seeking bailouts from the federal government -- or to the politicians who would enact that bankers’ daydream.

McCain and his wife own at least nine houses across the country valued at an estimated $13,123,269, and like DeVos, Romney and so many other rich Republicans, he has no idea what it means to stretch his money from paycheck to paycheck. Trusting him to look out for my best interests is like trusting Dr. Kervorkian not to pull the plug.

Obama nomination is historical

Barack Obama is the Democratic presidential nominee. What a historical moment for our country! Growing up in Detroit and living through the civil rights era, I never thought I'd live to see this day. Sure, I heard family and friends talk about equal rights in public, but they changed their tune behind closed doors. That was okay. I couldn't condemn them for their prejudice because I understood they were raised to think that way, which motivated me to raise my children differently, as it did millions of other Americans. Our efforts have reaped results.

Two bloggers wrote posts that illustrated to me just how far we've come. This was written by Kvatch, who plans on voting for Barack Obama precisely because he's black:

Now before you get yourself in a tizzy—screaming at me about reverse racism or how I’ve reduced Obama down to one banal fact—think about this: The one inescapable truth is that Obama’s perspective as president will be different than all who’ve preceded him, a truth that applies equally well to Senator Clinton. These presidential candidates simply aren’t crusty old white guys. Their experience and their outlook are fundamentally different than a Bush, or a Reagan, a Kennedy, or a Johnson.

Whether or not Obama brings change is unimportant. He is change.

For all the change Obama represents, Ezra Klein is surprised by how predictable and normal it feels.

Obama's speech tonight was powerful, but then, most all of his speeches are. This address stood out less than I expected. It took me an hour to realize how extraordinary that was. I had just watched an African-American capture the Democratic nomination for the Presidency of the United States of America, and it felt...normal. Almost predictable. 50 years ago, African Americans often couldn't vote, and dozens died in the fight to ensure them the franchise. African-Americans couldn't use the same water fountains or rest rooms as white Americans. Black children often couldn't attend the same schools as white children. Employers could discriminate based on race. 50 years ago, African Americans occupied, in effect, a second, and lesser, country. Today, an African-American man may well become the president of the whole country, and it feels almost normal.

It was, to be sure, not entirely unpredicted. On March 31st, 1968, Martin Luther King Jr. preached his final Sunday sermon. "We shall overcome," he said, "because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." Four days later, he was murdered. But 40 years later, his dream is more alive than he could have ever imagined. Not only might a black man be president, but at times, many forget to even be surprised by it.

We're not perfect yet, but we've come a long way.


(Cross-posted at BFM.)

Blogging for Michigan is going to Denver!

A nice honor was bestowed on Blogging for Michigan by the Democratic National Convention Committee yesterday. They were picked to participate in the State Blogger Corps at the convention in Denver this August.

Howard Dean made the announcement yesterday:

"Similar to the record-breaking voter turnout our Party has seen during the primary season, the demand for these coveted blogger positions is yet another indicator of the tremendous interest in this historic Convention," said Governor Dean. "The Internet has played a critical role in connecting Americans to elected officials and candidates seeking office. The DemConvention State Blogger Corps will continue to foster this dialogue - in all 50 of our states and our territories too - as we head towards this year's historic election and elect a Democrat to the White House."

The DNCC previously announced an expansion of the credentialed blogger pool from past Conventions and the addition of a state blogger credentialing program. As part of the new DemConvention State Blogger Corps, designed for bloggers covering state and local politics, bloggers will receive unparalleled access to state delegations and the floor of the Convention hall. In a truly unprecedented move, the DNCC will seat these bloggers with their respective delegations during the historic four-day event, providing even greater access for local coverage and perspective. Highlights from these blogs will also be featured on www.DemConvention.com in the lead up to and during the Convention.

One blog was selected from each state and territory. You can check here to see the list of other winners picked from a field of more than 400 applicants. The applicants not selected will still be eligible to be part of a General Blogger Pool.

As many of you know, I'm a front-pager at Blogging for Michigan, so I was thrilled to hear we were chosen. (No, I'm not going to Denver, someone has to stay home and tend the hearth.) Although I help provide content to the blog, BFM is the brainchild of Christine Barry and Cathleen (wizardkitten) Carrigan, and it's their hard work that deserves to be recognized. Even more amazing to consider is the fact that BFM just celebrated their 1st birthday at the beginning of May! Those ladies are dynamos! (Not to take anything away from the other guys and gals who contribute to the blog or course, but those two are the primary contributors.)

So, as you might imagine, we've all been pretty excited since we got the news (on the same day Obama and Edwards came to Michigan no less!), and it was a kick to wake up to an article about us (wizardkitten in particular) in USA Today.

Dispatches from this year's Democratic National Convention will be penned by writers with names like wizardkitten and appear in bloggingformichigan.com and other sites, as well as coming from more traditional names, newspapers and television broadcasts.

The Democratic Party on Wednesday chose 55 bloggers who will have access to the floor of the Denver convention representing 54 states and territories and Americans abroad. Wizardkitten — aka Cathleen Carrigan, a 42-year-old Michigan blogger and former rock-band bassist — said the news that her blog was selected "thrilled" and "overwhelmed" her.

Picked from a field of 400 applicants, members of the State Blogger Corps will blog for their state and be seated with their delegation during the August convention. The fact that Democrats haven't decided whether they will seat delegates from the disputed primaries in Michigan and Florida won't affect Carrigan, but she still remains optimistic she will be alongside her delegation.

Wizardkitten is also optimistic a Democrat will be our next president! Blogging for Michigan plans on doing whatever it takes to help make that happen.

Postscript: I wanted to make sure I recognized all the other hard working bloggers in our state. Michigan is fortunate to have so many great ones (check the side bar links or click here) and I'm certain many of them will be picked to be part of the General Blogger Pool.

McCain Is Like Every Other Old Republican

This headline from The Huffington Post is meant to warn us about McCain, but I think most voters know he only pretends to be a moderate. After all, it's common knowledge that McCain has earned an 83 lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union and votes with his party 88.3 percent of the time.

McCain also pretends to care about working class Americans. Or, as this writer puts it: It Takes Real Chutzpah For A Guy Who Owns Eight Houses (McCain) To Call Barack Obama An "Elitist"

The McCain campaign is managed by a cadre of Washington-insider special interest lobbyists. He and his current wife are estimated to be worth about $100 million. He reportedly owns eight houses. His let-them-eat-cake economic policies are based on George Bush's failed radical conservative "you're on your own buddy" philosophy. One after another he supported trade agreements that protect the rights of corporations, but ignore the rights of labor, and have devastated one Pennsylvania community after another. He gets most of his campaign cash from the wealthiest corporate interests around. And he has the gall to call Barack Obama an "elitist"?

The McCain campaign said of Obama, "It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans," but McCain is the guy who supports the Bush tax cuts, offers everyday Americans no solutions on the housing crisis, and thinks a return to trickle-down economics would be good for the country.

Talk about being out of touch. McCain is just more of the same. He's Romney, he's DeVos, and he's George (this is my base) Bush all rolled into one.

McCain is Downright McNasty

The Republicans have spent decades proclaiming their moral superiority and they crow that they're the only ones who can be trusted to uphold the sanctity of marriage, yet they're enamored with John McCain, a person who swears, throws temper tantrums and calls his wife despicable names in front of others. Did I mention he's a philanderer?

Is this the kind of person we want representing our country?

The Real McCain by Cliff Schecter, which will arrive in bookstores next month, reports an angry exchange between McCain and his wife that happened in full view of aides and reporters during a 1992 campaign stop. An advance copy of the book was obtained by RAW STORY.

Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c---t." [my editing] McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.

The man who was known as "McNasty" in high school has erupted in foul-languaged tirades at political foes and congressional colleagues more-or-less throughout his career, and his quickness to anger has been an issue on the presidential campaign trail as evidence of his fury has surfaced.

Schecter isn't the first person to note McCain's character failings. The NY Times wrote this in 2000:

For a candidate running on character and biography, it is also an awkward time to remember: Mr. McCain abandoned his wife, who had reared their three children while he was in Vietnamese prisons, and he then began his political career with the resources of his new wife's family.[...]

The story began when Vietnam released Mr. McCain and other prisoners of war in March 1973. He stepped off a military transport plane on crutches, an instant war hero, and quickly had a painful shock.

His wife, Carol, a tall, slim woman who had once been a model, had nearly died in a car wreck in 1969. H. Ross Perot, the businessman and advocate of prisoners of war, had paid for her medical care, but the injuries left her four inches shorter and on crutches, and she had gained a good deal of weight.

As John McCain puzzled over his career, he also found himself sorting out his marriage.

McCain also did a little soul searching back in 1979 and lamented that he would never make admiral like his father and grandfather. The Times said "he had always dreamed of doing something great, of imprinting his name on the history books, but at age 42 he found himself with a stuttering military career and no base from which to go into politics."

That all changed in April 1979 when he met Cindy Hensely at a cocktail party in Honolulu. He spent the whole party talking to her, went out to dinner and from there he pursued her. McCain didn't divorce his first wife till the following February, which left him free to promptly marry Cindy, heiress to Hensley & Co., one of the largest Anheuser-Busch beer distributors in the nation. It was her father's business and political contacts that helped McCain gain a foothold into Arizona politics, along with Cindy's wealth from her expired trust funds.

Nice guy, eh? He dumps his disabled wife and marries a wealthy woman in order to advance his ambitions, and then he treats her like dirt in public. I cringe to even think about what he might do to her behind closed doors.

The kind of marriage the McCain's have is their business, but the way he treats people, his violent temper and the inappropriate words he uses in public are things that should concern us. We need a cool head in the White House, not a hot head who speaks before thinking, and we definitely need someone who will bring respect back to the office. That person is not John McCain.

Edwards still holding off on endorsement

But...

In his first public speech since dropping out of the race two months ago, Edwards told the Young Democrats of North Carolina convention he has a "very high opinion" of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. He said the country "would be blessed" to have either one of them as president.

The former North Carolina senator and vice-presidential nominee said both are better suited to advance his anti-poverty platform than Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain.

John McCain is a campaign finance criminal. Click here to read more about McCain's finance finagling and then remember this in November. A vote for McCain will give us another president who puts himself above the law and does whatever he wants. Is that really how you want to cast your vote?

McCain is One Scary Neo-Con

We need to start focusing on John McCain. This article by Harold Meyerson is a good place to start.

It is 3 a.m., and the stillness of the White House night is shattered by the ringing of the red phone. President John McCain, rousing himself from a deep sleep, turns on the light and picks up the receiver. A U.S. embassy in a Middle Eastern country, he is told, has been blown up, and al-Qaeda is taking credit.

McCain takes a deep breath. "Character counts, my friend," he says. "Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb Iran."

There is a rustling of blankets, and, brushing aside Cindy McCain, a concerned Joe Lieberman rises from the bed. "Not Iran, Mr. President," he says. "They hate al-Qaeda."

"That's right," the president says. "I remember now." He sighs with relief. "Good thing you're here every night, Joe."

But suppose, dear reader, that John McCain becomes president and Joe Lieberman doesn't bunk with the McCains on a nightly basis. How easily should the rest of us sleep? It's anything but an academic question after McCain's bizarre performance in Jordan last week.

There, he told reporters that he was "concerned about Iranian [operatives] taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back" to Iraq. "That's well known," he continued -- at which point Lieberman whispered a correction in his ear. "I'm sorry," McCain then said. "The Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."

McCain made that claim on several occasions. Slip of the tongue? Once, maybe, but not several times. I think McCain is using a Bush/Cheny trick. He's trying to create an al-Qaeda-Iran association where one doesn't exist. Should he win the election, it's not much of a stretch to imagine him justifying a pre-emptive attack against Iran.

So, for those of you thinking about voting for McCain in protest, Meyerson has this to say:

If you liked Bush's foreign and military policy, you'll love McCain's.

(Cross-posted at BFM.)

No more excuses for Hillary

Clinton suffered another loss last night and it bothers me that she didn't even have the manners or graciousness to thank the voters that turned out for her. And, for the second time, she didn't congratulate Obama on his win. That bothers me. Win or lose, manners still count in my book.

Hillary also didn't make excuses to explain away Obama's win last night. That's because there are no more excuses according to Ezra Klein:

With a population that is more than 91 percent white, Wisconsin isn't African American enough for Bill Clinton to hint that it didn't count. As one of the 20 most populous states in the union, it's not small enough for Clinton's chief strategist, Mark Penn, to suggest it didn't rate. Because Wisconsin uses a primary, the Clinton campaign can't pretend it was noncompetitive because of a mysterious allergy to caucuses.

The campaign can't use the excuse that Obama's lack of experience matters either:

[...] it's growing increasingly hard for Clinton to argue that her experience and electoral discipline set her apart when the largest organization she's ever run—this campaign—is listing so badly and exhibiting a reality so far from the rhetoric.

All those facts aside, Clinton is still in the race and could pull off an upset (or convince the superdelegates to do something undemocratic and throw the race her way). However, if she should lose, I hope Hillary takes the loss with dignity and bows out gracefully. Nobody likes a sore loser.

King to Edwards: My Father Would be Proud

Martin Luther King III met with John Edwards at the King Center in Atlanta on January 19th, 2008. Following that meeting, he sent Edwards this letter praising him for speaking out for those without a voice. The highest praise comes at the end though. King tells Edwards, "My father would be proud."

January 20, 2008

The Honorable John R. Edwards
410 Market Street
Suite 400
Chapel Hill, NC 27516

Dear Senator Edwards:

It was good meeting with you yesterday and discussing my father's legacy. On the day when the nation will honor my father, I wanted to follow up with a personal note.

There has been, and will continue to be, a lot of back and forth in the political arena over my father's legacy. It is a commentary on the breadth and depth of his impact that so many people want to claim his legacy. I am concerned that we do not blur the lines and obscure the truth about what he stood for: speaking up for justice for those who have no voice.

I appreciate that on the major issues of health care, the environment, and the economy, you have framed the issues for what they are - a struggle for justice. And, you have almost single-handedly made poverty an issue in this election.

You know as well as anyone that the 37 million people living in poverty have no voice in our system. They don't have lobbyists in Washington and they don't get to go to lunch with members of Congress. Speaking up for them is not politically convenient. But, it is the right thing to do.

I am disturbed by how little attention the topic of economic justice has received during this campaign. I want to challenge all candidates to follow your lead, and speak up loudly and forcefully on the issue of economic justice in America.

From our conversation yesterday, I know this is personal for you. I know you know what it means to come from nothing. I know you know what it means to get the opportunities you need to build a better life. And, I know you know that injustice is alive and well in America, because millions of people will never get the same opportunities you had.

I believe that now, more than ever, we need a leader who wakes up every morning with the knowledge of that injustice in the forefront of their minds, and who knows that when we commit ourselves to a cause as a nation, we can make major strides in our own lifetimes. My father was not driven by an illusory vision of a perfect society. He was driven by the certain knowledge that when people of good faith and strong principles commit to making things better, we can change hearts, we can change minds, and we can change lives.

So, I urge you: keep going. Ignore the pundits, who think this is a horserace, not a fight for justice. My dad was a fighter. As a friend and a believer in my father's words that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, I say to you: keep going. Keep fighting. My father would be proud.

Sincerely,

Martin L. King, III

Edwards may not get the nomination, but I believe he'll be a force for change in this world just like Martin Luther King, Jr., Jimmy Carter, and others who have seen injustice and stepped up to the plate to do something about it.

(Cross-posted at BFM.)

Edwards Fundraising Goal Falls Short

Edwards' supporters efforts to raise $7 million dollars in one day weren't even close according to Mark Maynard:

I can’t find official numbers, but according to a comment left at Democratic Underground dotcom, the Edward’s “money bomb” fell dismally short of the $7 million dollars that had been hoped for. Apparently, about $1 million was raised. That’s not bad, I suppose, for a really unorganized last-minute effort, with no help at all from the national campaign, but I think we were all hoping for quite a bit more.

I was hoping for better results too, but $1 million is better than nothing. I'm not sure if that total includes matching funds or not. If not, that $1 million becomes $2 million dollars.

The Edwards' campaign was appreciative of our efforts and David Bonior (the national campaign manager) posted a thank you on their website.

Thank you! On behalf of John and Elizabeth Edwards and our entire campaign, I want to thank everyone who made a contribution on Friday, January 18th. In particular, I want to thank all those from the netroots community for rallying to our side at a time when we need it most. Thanks to you, we received several thousand contributions on Friday - and more than half of those contributions were from folks who had never before made a donation to our campaign.

As a result of your support, Friday was one of the best online fundraising days ever for our campaign. And, importantly, the great majority of those contributions will be eligible for matching funds, doubling the impact of your extraordinary effort.

We appreciate every contribution and every contributor to our campaign. We know many of those who have given to this campaign do so because they see that John is fighting for them - for their families and for the American dream we hold close to our hearts. Thank you for continuing to stand with John, and for helping to get out his message of bold, transformational change.

We fell short of our goal, but we still have South Carolina and Super Tuesday to look forward to. If Edwards secures enough delegate votes in those contests, pundits are saying it could make him a kingmaker. His aides haven't divulged what he might want for the support of his delegates, but he'd certainly be able to wrangle a prominent role for himself in a Democratic administration. That gives me some consolation.

John Edwards in the race till the convention

John Edwards may not have placed first in any of the earlier primaries, but he is not planning on quietly fading away according to his campaign manager David Bonior. He told The Huffington Post, "we're in this all the way, not only through February 5th, but into June and into the convention and picking up delegates all the way."

It's no secret that I support Edwards, but I've been increasingly concerned that without a first place finish he wouldn't stand a chance. Huffington Post correspondent Marc Cooper gave me a reason to be optimistic:

There may be more than standard campaign bravado behind Bonior's bold prediction. Edwards, in fact, doesn't have to win the nomination in order to win a similarly striking victory. If neither Obama nor Clinton can win a clean majority of nominating delegates going into the late summer Democratic convention, and if Edwards can keep scoring at least in the double-digits throughout the primaries, he could wind up with enough delegates to empower him as kingmaker, as the candidate with enough convention floor votes to sway the nomination to whom he pleases.

It's hardly a strategy that Bonior would confirm. But neither would he deny it when asked directly by the HuffPost. "I can tell you this much," Bonior said. "We're going to be marching into that convention with a whole lot of delegates."

Unfortunately, to keep Edwards in the race, he'll need money, lots of it, and that's why Edwards' supporters are asking people to donate to his campaign on Friday, January 18, and help him raise $7 million dollars. Come on Democrats, don't let Ron Paul supporters show us up! Help Edwards even if you're a Hillary or Barack fan by donating whatever you can afford. Just click on the picture below or donate at JohnEdwards.com.

Poor Rudy!

This was a headline at the Huffington Post:

Lost amid the celebration over Mitt Romney's win in the Michigan primary on Tuesday night was an equally noteworthy electoral result. Rudy Giuliani, the one-time frontrunner for the Republican nomination, placed sixth in the state. The three percent of the vote he received was just one point higher than that cast for "uncommitted."

On a brighter note, Rudy's money is helping to keep our economy going. Oh, wait, that's wrong. Scratch that. There is no bright note for Rudy.

Judge the candidates by their enemies

When the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce promised to spend millions of dollars to defeat candidates deemed to be anti-business (Edwards, Obama and Huckabee), I told myself those candidates must pose a real threat to the status quo to draw that kind of attention.

When Fortune Magazine recently made the claim they believe John Edwards is the only candidate who will stand up to corporate America, I sat up and took notice. Corporate America is the media and their message was clear (at least to me) - Edwards is the enemy.

I don't know if my method of choosing who I believe to be the best candidate is scientific or not, but I felt reassured when I read this from David Sirota.

With so much campaign rhetoric and propaganda swirling around, how do you really find out where any of these candidates are coming from on the issues? Over the years, I've figured out a decent method: Judge them - at least in part - by their enemies. Enmity cuts right through all the B.S. Who is afraid of a given candidates indicates whose interests that candidate truly threatens.

By this standard, this week has given us two pretty exemplary signals. First, Reuters reported a story under the headline "Corporate Elite Fear Candidate Edwards." The piece details how Wall Street moneymen and K Street lobbyists are frightened about Edwards populist, power-challenging message against greed and corruption.

Now today, the Club for Growth - a notorious corporate front group in Washington - has issued this press release bemoaning "Mike Huckabee's Liberal Record." It provides the details of an event in which the major players in Washington's conservative Establishment will berate Huckabee for having the nerve to stop health care cuts and invest in public infrastructure during his tenure as governor of Arkansas.

Sirota isn't endorsing either of these candidates, but he's making the point, "When the forces of money, power and corruption attack, it means candidates are probably doing at least something right."

Edwards is still my choice, and while I'm no fan of Huckabee, it does make me laugh to just think about a "Republican populist" being targeted by a corporate front group. I never thought I'd live to see the day.

Hopelessly (Un) Committed to John Edwards

I'm running for president because of 54 years of my life I have believed to my soul that the men and women who worked in that mill with my father were worth every bit as much as the man that owned that mill. - John Edwards

How can that message NOT resonate with every working class American? It's a message I learned from my parents and they learned from their parents. Every person has value and all work is valuable. It's too bad morality lessons are lost on the media. They've practically written John Edwards off as a footnote in campaign history. That's a shame. They might be missing a critical story according to Paul Rogat Loeb.

As media commentators proclaim Hillary Clinton’s rebirth from the ashes of defeat, they miss a critical story – Obama and Edwards won the New Hampshire primary. Add together Obama’s 36 percent and Edwards’s 17, and they beat Clinton’s 39 percent by 14 points. And because the Democratic primaries have proportionate representation, they’ll in fact come out with more combined delegates - 13 to Clinton’s 9.

Loeb's research also indicates those backing Edwards or Obama solidly pick the other as their second choice, which would make them a formidable ticket if they ran together.

The reason Edwards and Obama beat Clinton by 14 points is because politically they're much different from her. Consider Edwards' criticism that Clinton is the embodiment of Washington status quo and Loeb's description of her.

Clinton recently held a massive fundraising dinner with homeland security lobbyists. Her chief campaign strategist, Mark Penn, is CEO of a PR firm that prepped the Blackwater CEO for his recent congressional testimony, is aggressively involved in anti-union efforts, and has represented everyone from the Argentine military junta and Philip Morris to Union Carbide after the 1984 Bhopal disaster. Clinton supported an Iran vote so reckless that Jim Webb called it “Dick Cheney’s fondest Pipe Dream,” and did so, according to her campaign insiders, because she was covering herself for the general election. She’s still not apologized for her Iraq vote, and her hoarding of scarce 2006 campaign dollars may well have cost the Democrats an even larger Congressional victory.

Clinton calls herself an agent of change, but Corporate America is strongly represented among her circle of friends. That sounds like more of the same to me.

Would I like to see a woman become president? Absolutely, but I need to consider more than gender. The problems we face in this country are primarily the result of two things - (1) years of Republican dominance and (2) corporate abuse and greed. Edwards is a Democrat, so that takes care of the first problem, and Fortune Magazine recently made the claim that the Democrats' war on corporate greed is mostly bluster - except for John Edwards - they believe he is the only candidate who will stand up to corporate America. When a business magazine makes a statement like that, I sit up and take notice. So, that takes care of the second problem and makes Edwards the candidate for me.

(Attn: Michigan Democratic delegates. My uncommitted vote is a really a vote for John Edwards. )



(Cross-posted at Blogging for Michigan.)

Why does corporate America hate us?

Early primary voters are choosing the candidates with populist messages - Obama, Edwards and Huckabee. Corporate America took notice and they're not too happy.

Commerce vows to punish anti-business candidates

Alarmed at the increasingly populist tone of the 2008 political campaign, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is set to issue a fiery promise to spend millions of dollars to defeat candidates deemed to be anti-business.

"We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed," chamber President Tom Donohue said.

Nice. Voters are concerned about an economy that borders on recession, a weak record of job creation, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, declining home values and growing health care crisis, but the chamber isn't worried about our concerns - they're only worried about protecting their shareholders and CEO's.

Reacting to what it sees as a potentially hostile political climate, Donohue said, the chamber will seek to punish candidates who target business interests with their rhetoric or policy proposals, including congressional and state-level candidates.

Although Donohue shied away from precise figures, he indicated that his organization would spend in excess of the approximately $60 million it spent in the last presidential cycle.

No words of sympathy for workers. No promise from corporate America that they'll work to improve workers' living standards. No thank you for the record high productivity levels. Nothing. Just derision and a promise to bite the butts of the candidates we support until they bleed.

Thanks, Mr. Donohue. You just helped push more voters toward the populist candidates.

Should the Iowa Caucus Influence Us?

Today is caucus day in Iowa. Real people will have the first say in who they think should become our next president. Should what they say influence our decision when it comes time for us to vote? Because Iowans are first, does that mean they're smarter than us and know better?

Political analyst Larry Sabato believes we need to stay focused in reality.

[...] the more immediate need is for all of us to keep in mind legitimate questions about Iowa's system as we watch the results stream in this evening. The press' breathless pronouncements about the "winners" and "losers" should be tempered somewhat by another reality--the deep flaws inherent in Iowa's over-hyped caucuses.

Sabato feels the (1) the caucuses this year are way too early; (2) the caucuses and the state are unrepresentative of the broader electorate; and (3) the rules of the caucuses raise real questions about fairness.

This is what he says about the timing:

Have you met anyone who thinks it's a good idea to start the process two days after New Year's, with campaigning having peaked over the Christmas holidays? Let's remember why this has happened: Iowa and New Hampshire absolutely insisted upon going first, as always. Isn't that a little bit greedy? Aren't there 48 other equal states?

The lack of representativeness:

Iowa, like New Hampshire, is overwhelmingly white and disproportionately rural. African-Americans and Hispanics in the Hawkeye State, for example, number just 2 percent and 3 percent of the population, respectively, and 38 percent of Iowans are located in rural areas. In the nation as a whole, nearly 25 percent of the population is African-American or Hispanic, and a mere 21 percent of U.S. citizens are found in rural localities. New Hampshire is even worse than Iowa, with a population that is 0.7 percent black, 1.7 percent Hispanic, and 41 percent rural. In the Democratic Party--the home of 90 percent of African-Americans and about two-thirds of Hispanics--the disparity is especially significant. The two first states to vote often determine one or both party nominees, yet racial and ethnic minorities will have played a tiny role.

And the unfair caucus rules:

Let's keep in mind that the Iowa caucus requires a great deal from all participants, not least a full evening devoted to travel and meeting. The time commitment discourages many from joining in. Iowa's population is about 3 million, of which approximately 2 million are registered voters. The news media are full of stories about an expected "record" turnout tonight. And what will that record amount to? In both parties combined, there may be as many as 250,000 people showing up for the caucuses, or 12 percent of the registered voters. Therefore 88 percent of Iowa's registered population won't be seen or heard from on caucus night.

Iowa gains monetarily from being first (this has been the most expensive campaign in Iowa history), but beyond that their influence in shaping the presidential campaign shouldn't be taken too seriously. Besides, the winners of caucuses in Iowa have gone on to win the presidency only twice since the caucuses started in 1972: Jimmy Carter in 1976 and George W. Bush in 2000. And neither of those choices turned out to be so good for the country.

Poverty threatens our domestic tranquillity

The LA Times is running a series of editorials on the values and issues they feel will shape the 2008 election, i.e. the environment, liberty and justice, etc. Today, they focused on our country's domestic tranquillity, which they believe is being tested by new challenges, chief among them persistent poverty and the fraying of our connective infrastructure. It's pretty good stuff, especially the part about poverty. Here's an excerpt:

If tranquillity is best assured by "a more equal distribution" of the nation's wealth, we have much to fear. Our schools are faltering; our healthcare system leaves millions without access to doctors. Many are homeless or face the loss of homes. Some seethe at illegal immigrants who compete with Americans for jobs. In our America, 60 million people survive on $7 a day.

As we contemplate the coming election, we seek a president who understands that the unchecked spread of poverty is not a natural condition but rather a failure of government, and that action is required. Democrat John Edwards has been the most ardent anti-poverty crusader in the campaign; his ideas include strengthening labor laws, stimulating job creation and distributing housing vouchers for poor families that could be used anywhere, not just in government housing. The latter proposal alone would vastly expand shelter for those in need. The rest of the Democratic field offers little in the way of ingenuity, opting instead for the obvious observation that money spent in Iraq could better help America's poor.

On the Republican side, lack of specificity is matched by conspicuous indifference. When the GOP candidates were invited to debate poverty at Morgan State University in September, not one of the then-front-runners attended; present were Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul and Alan Keyes. Now a leading contender, Huckabee frames fighting poverty as a "pro-life" position; more constructively, he also addresses issues such as prison reform. Other Republicans have done meaningful anti-poverty work -- John McCain in housing and Mitt Romney in healthcare.

Although these candidates present ideas that might contribute at the margins, none goes far enough. Here are some ideas we'd like to hear them discuss:

President Bush came to office on a promise of "compassionate conservatism," but in housing, as in so many other areas, he's proved far more conservative than compassionate. His administration has sought, for instance, to cut Section 8 housing vouchers by 850,000; his successor should not only replenish the voucher program but add to it. There is no poverty worse than homelessness.

The next president should support and pay for early childhood programs such as Head Start; he or she also should endorse tax breaks for college students and their parents. Low-income students would benefit if community college tuition, in particular, were tax-deductible. And here's a proposal we would welcome: federal assistance for states educating the majority of the nation's illegal immigrants. Education can lift a poor person into prosperity; the government owes its people this chance to raise themselves.

Free trade is an engine of growth and jobs and thus opportunity. Yet open markets bring dislocation, and for the worker whose plant moves to Mexico, it is cold comfort that jobs are being created abroad. For Democrats especially, this last issue is a trying one. President Clinton was a champion of free trade and a supporter of NAFTA -- this page supported it then and still does. Today's candidates, however, are less enthusiastic. Edwards blames the pact for sending 1 million jobs abroad. Sen. Barack Obama calls for it to be "renegotiated." Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton says it should be "fixed." Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich veers into absurdity by proposing to scrap NAFTA and withdraw from the World Trade Organization.

Our goal should not be to abandon free trade but rather to make it work -- for the economy and also for the poor.

These are good ideas that I'd like to hear discussed too, but will it change anything? The candidates will say whatever they think will get them votes. Bush is a prime example of that. People really believed he would be "compassionate." I guess the best we can do is vote our conscience and hope the next president really does care about poverty and inequality. That pretty much rules out all Republicans.