StudioGlyphic

Watch the New York City Democratic Presidential Debate online.

Now that the field has been winnowed down to four candidates, the format is not as strictly regulated. The four candidates are sitting together at a large table opposite Dan Rather and two other moderators.

The fact that pressure is building on Edwards to differentiate himself from Kerry and make a good showing on Tuesday made this one of the most contentious debates of the season. Adding to the contention is the fact that the moderators, especially the woman (from the NY Times?), keep interrupting. Sharpton added fuel to the fire by stating implicitly and explicitly that the debate was being conducted unfairly.

The debate started off with a weird question about the candidates' religious beliefs. Later came a question about whether God was on the side of the United States. Wtf?!

Edwards was pretty effective at grabbing time, and Kucinich was particularly ineffective. Sharpton tried to shout his way into getting more time, which really rubbed me the wrong way.

Edwards did too much recycling of his stump speech.

The bitch moderator tried to bait Kerry by asking, "Are you a liberal?" I'm surprised she didn't ask, "Are you now or have you ever been a liberal?" Kerry dodged the question, called labels silly, brought up examples from his record to show he wasn't liberal. Kucinich proudly proclaimed himself as a liberal. Asked whether Kerry was a liberal, Kucinich said "no." Sharpton said Bush's extremism made everyone look liberal, but that Kerry wasn't really a liberal. Edwards chimed in (more effectively than Kerry) that labels from insider publications were meaningless and that issues were most important to people. Kerry then effectively questioned Bush's conservative bona fides and called the administration for being radical.

Another moderator questioned Edwards' credibility on the poverty debate because he's wealthy, listing his assets in DC and NC. Kucinich defended him against this line of questioning. Sharpton keeps trying to make some silly point about there not being just two Americas, but many. Edwards did a good job of wrapping it up by talking about the two Americas in education, health care, government, etc.

I don't know. I'm going to vote for Edwards because I think it will be good for the country to have an extended Democratic race. If it were closer between Edwards and Kerry, I would vote for Dean and send delegates to the convention.

Update 2004-03-02 12:04

I'm voting for Dean.

washingtonpost.com: Divide and Bicker

The feuding and backbiting that plagued the Howard Dean campaign had turned utterly poisonous. Behind the facade of a successful political operation, senior officials plotted against each other, complained about the candidate and developed one searing doubt.

Dean, they concluded, did not really want to be president.

Interesting.

Update 2004-02-39 23:08

Howard's response

NPR : Talk Radio's New, Liberal Hope

Hmm.

Place one part Jay-Z's Black Album and one part the Beatles' White Album in large computer. Mix vigorously. Burn a 44 minute CD. Call it the Grey Album.

Not available in stores!

What's Right With Kerry

We should be fair. We should also keep in my mind why John Kerry would be a vast improvement over the current occupant.

Since I don't know anything about these judges and attorneys, I'll go with the LA Weekly's Endorsements.

The Weekly also has endorsements for state and local offices and propositions. I agree with their recommendations on Boxer and Bass:

Barbara Boxer

Our clear choice in this race is Karen Bass, a brilliant community organizer and advocate who has fought for decades to make L.A. a better place to live. As head of the Community Coalition, Bass has worked successfully to reduce the number of liquor stores in South-Central, to bring training programs and jobs into that community, and to create cross-racial organizations. As a USC professor, she’s taught physicians how to relate better to indigent and minority patients. She’ll bring a street-wise perspective to Sacramento that the legislature badly needs.

Unfortunately, the Weekly takes the wrong position on Prop 57 and 58. I could probably stomach 58 passing, but the Weekly has decided to go one farther and endorse voting yes on 57 simply because it's the companion initiative to 58. Screw it. See previous entry for reasons why.

Tuesday's election is more important than you may think. It's not just the Democratic Primary (I'm voting for Edwards) or State Assembly seats (I'm voting for Bass), but a series of propositions which will have long-term effects on our state.

What? You didn't receive the Official Voter Information Guide? Then you're not registered to vote. Go here.

Here's the quick run-down on my recommendations. Explanations follow.

YES:

Prop 56 - State Budget, Related Taxes, and Reserve. Voting Requirements. Penalties. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute

NO:

Prop 58 - The California Balanced Budget Act

YES:

Prop 55 – Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2004

NO:

Prop 57 - The Economic Recovery Bond Act

---

Prop 56: looking back at the recall election, making government work

By the summer of 2003, the recall campaign was underway, with Congressman Darrell Issa injecting a couple million dollars of his own fortune into the gathering of signatures. Republicans in the California legislature decided to use the budget as a weapon against the just-elected Democratic governor. As the budget standoff grew into a full-blown crisis, electorate anger against Sacramento mounted and the recall campaign was successful. This use of the budget as political weapon must be stopped.

Prop 56 will deny legislators and the governor their salaries for every day that the budget is late; they will not be able to recover their lost wages, either. Legislators have shown us that they are all too willing to jeopardize the smooth operations of the state and the paychecks of government employees for political gain (22 out of the last 28 years, according to the Sacramento Bee). How willing will they be when their own salaries are at stake? If Prop 56 passes, we'll see the politicians buckle down and get some work done.

Prop 56 will also lower the vote requirements in the legislature from two-thirds to 55%. The two-thirds requirements are an anomaly among states. In California, no other everyday vote requires this kind of supermajority. Our current system lets a minority of one-third plus one hold up the business of the state. Prop 56 will put an end to the tyranny of the minority.

Prop 56 will give voters more information about the budget and the way their representatives voted. This is crucial to our representative democracy. Ultimately, the responsibility for our common government lies in the hands of the people. We cannot be expected to speak out for every clause of every piece of legislationthat's why we pay our elected representatives. However, we must have as much information available as possible, so that we may make informed evaluations of our representatives when the time comes.

Prop 56 will fix California's structural problems and help the state get back to the business of being number one.

Vote YES.

---

Prop 58: sounds like a good idea, but is it really?

California (like 90% of all states) is in crisis. Structural budget deficits that have been papered over by bond issues have contributed to the state having one of the lowest bond ratings in the nation. How did this happen? Deficits occur when expenditures exceed revenues. The governor says that California has a spending problem. Yet per capita spending (in real dollars) is near historic lows. The problem is revenue, and Prop 58 doesn't deal with that problem.

Here's the source of the revenue problem: 1) loss of capital gains as a result of the tech-bubble and stock market bust, 2) cuts in marginal tax rates during the boom years, 3) loss of income tax due to changes in federal tax rates, resulting in lower taxable incomes, and 4) restrictions on property tax growth, out of line with the growth in population and inflation. So you can blame Wall Street and the business cycle, blame the short-sighted legislature, blame the Bush administration, and blame Prop 13. Spending, however, is not on this list.

Will Prop 58 make it easier for the state to increase revenues? No. Will Prop 58 further restrict the legislature in its ability to make sound fiscal decisions? Yes. Is the legislature already overly restricted? Yes. With all the voter initiatives we've passed in the last 15 years, along with the requirements of debt service, 70% of the general fund is untouchable. By law, a certain percentage of the general fund must go to education, to roads, etc. This leaves only a small percentage for the legislature to work with, and that doesn't make any sense. The needs of the state will vary from year to year. When the economy and employment is up, the state doesn't need to spend as much on job training, unemployment, Medicaid, etc. When vacancy rates are at 6% and property values are down, investments in affordable housing are less critical. Budget decisions should be made based on present and future needs and strengths. A balanced budget restriction would hamper the ability of the legislature to govern.

Finally, Prop 58 gives the governor new powers: "Allows the Governor to proclaim a fiscal emergency in specified circumstances, and submit proposed legislation to address the fiscal emergency." I don't know about you, but putting that much power in the hands of a single person doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

Vote NO.

---

Prop 55 vs. Prop 57

One of the most powerful tools that government entities have is the ability to issue bonds. This is essentially a loan from the capital markets, to be paid back with interest over a number of years. Bonds can be paid from the general fund, or from special assessments, and are essentially backed by the fiscal soundness of most government entities. Since the state is not likely to declare bankruptcy, and has the power to increase revenues if necessary, investors like bonds. Of course, if a government entity borrows too much money, that starts to make investors nervous. Especially if budget projections show a future filled with deficits (sound familiar?). In order to borrow money under these circumstances, bond issuers have to pay higher interest rates to offset the risks. Therefore, bonds should be issued with care. The most important thing to look at in any bond measure is a) what the money will be used for, and b) how the bond will be repaid.

In the case of Prop 55 and Prop 57, the bond will be repaid out of the general fund. In other words, these bonds will put a further burden on the budget. That makes me nervous, for obvious reasons, and makes me inclined to reject both measures.

But Prop 55 will go toward the building and repair of facilities for schools throughout our education system. I believe that investments in education pay for themselves in the long run (why else would so many people go to college and grad school?). If California is to remain a leader in cutting edge technology and business, we need to lay the groundwork for an educated workforce. Furthermore, all the proposed construction will pump money into the economy, raising demand for goods and services, and creating a short-term revenue benefit until the business cycle moves back up again. In light of these two benefits, I think Prop 55 will be a good thing.

In contrast, Prop 57 borrows money to pay off previously borrowed money and fill the deficit gap. This is not an investment. This is a credit card balance transfer on the largest of scales. Sure, for individuals with debt problems, this can be a good idea. But imagine these same individuals as part-time workers who have the ability and opportunity to work full-time and refuse to do so. At the same time, they keep going out and buying booze and alcohol every night. Here we have a state that does things like cut marginal rates on the top 2% of incomes in California (whatever you may think, this isn't you) and put people in jail at a cost of $33,000 a year for a misdemeanor (stealing $100 worth of videotapes, for instance). It's irresponsible, and letting the state borrow money to deal with this shortcoming is irresponsible. Debt payment on this bond will only take away money from other necessary services for decades.

Vote YES on Prop 55. It's an education loan.

Vote NO on Prop 57. It's a credit card balance transfer for your lazy, boozing uncle John.

Update 2004-03-02 12:04

I'm voting for Dean.

I'm going to get shit for this one, but head on over to the Herseth for South Dakota site and consider giving a donation to the future cutest representative in the House.

Sure, sure, you could give her money for being a progressive Democrat, having a good chance of winning South Dakota's seat, and helping in the fight to take back the House, but I think the House could use a Rep you wouldn't mind being seen with (versus this guy). Eh. Whatever floats your boat.

Update 2004-02-26 14:16

Turns out Herseth has expressed support for the Gay Marriage Ban (read about it here and here). Act on whatever your conscience says.

I think I heard about this book a while back. The author's got his own blog with short essays and observations on this theme of the cheating culture. Check it out: The Cheating Culture Weblog

Bush Urges Congress to Pass Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

Here's the text of the amendment:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

There is, however, the possibility that making same-sex marriage an issue of the Presidential campaign could have a depressive effect on voter turnout among African Americans and Latinos. The Democrats will have to make the case that this is an equal protection under the law issue.

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall

"As far as we're concerned we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important."

After these words he was kind enough to say that "the Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat. We're ready to fall on our swords if he wants."

Marshall thinks we should be mad. At the very least, we should stop paying Chalabi money for bad intelligence.

How Democrat fund-raiser scored Dean knockout

Tactical goal: The point of the operation was to peel off Dean's liberal supporters in the crucial Jan. 19 Iowa caucus, which was a must-win for Dean. The Jones-commissioned survey of 800 likely Iowa caucusgoers by pollster Paul Harstad, taken after Thanksgiving when Dean was riding high, showed that a whopping 77 percent of Dean's backers identified themselves as liberal. Testing several issues, the poll determined that most of his supporters knew Dean for his opposition to the Iraq War, and they were not aware of where he stood on other issues dear to die-hard progressives: that Dean was endorsed eight times by the National Rifle Association; backed NAFTA, and favored cuts in Medicare spending Republicans had proposed in the mid-1990s.

Timing: The first spot, on Dean's NRA endorsements, ran Dec. 5-12 in Iowa. The second ad ran Dec. 12-19 in Iowa and hit Dean on his NRA backing and NAFTA and Medicare stands. By this time, Jones did not have much money left.

Daily Kos || Edwards for President

I want something else. I want someone who symbolizes the future of our party. Someone whose rhetoric inspires, rather than bores. Someone who has run a positive campaign worthy of praise, rather than someone who has used slash and burn campaign tactics against members of his own party. Someone who people actually like, rather than support for some bizarre notion of "electability".

Amen.

Hanna Rosin writes about Washington insiders who backed Dean who may now find themselves shut out of Washington: "Insiders Who Are On the Outs"

Sometimes the most interesting parts are at the end.

John Kerry's people, meanwhile, high on victory, are feeling magnanimous. But they don't forget. Many of them hung on even while their candidate was in single digits in the polls, and such loyalty deserves reward, they say. When former Democratic National Committee chairman Steve Grossman publicly said he was leaving the Dean campaign to join Kerry's a day before the Wisconsin primary, they accepted him. His father works for the Kerry campaign, and Grossman helped Kerry in his 1996 Senate race. But that he'd abandoned Dean so extravagantly didn't sit well. "There are codes of professional conduct," says one Kerry aide, who spoke on condition that he not be identified. "And sticking with your guy until the end is one of them.

The Economist argues that offshoring is good for America in "The great hollowing-out myth." From the conclusion:

Yes, individuals will be hurt in the process, and the focus of public policy should be directed towards providing a safety net for them, as well as ensuring that Americans have education to match the new jobs being created. By contrast, regarding globalisation as the enemy, as Mr Edwards does often and Messrs Kerry and Bush both do by default, is a much greater threat to America's economic health than any Indian software programmer.

So Dean's out of the race. What now? Looking at the remaining candidates, I prefer the son of the millworker.

Kerry has tremendous advantages in the general election due to his unlimited funds and the experience/capabilities of his organization. His biggest drawback is that he's uninspiring (and slimy), and that might suppress voter turnout. Al Gore 2000 without the charisma. I also think he'd be a mediocre President. Clinton in the midst of Monica Lewinsky without the excuse. I just don't like him. If he wins the nomination, I'll support him, of course.

Edwards is a very persuasive speaker. He can inspire passion among Democrats and has a lot of cross-over appeal (look at the exit polls). That's very important to getting the votes out in this close race. His lack of experience and voting record will be used against him as he gets outspent 4 to 1 by the Bush campaign. But half of Bush's money is expected to go toward grassroots GOTV operations, so that funding advantage could possibly be overcome by a volunteer army. Possibly.

The best thing Edwards could probably do right now is reach out to Dean, get his support, and adopt some of his policies such as universal health coverage.

In general, the Democrats' chances are good: Anti-Bush sentiment among Democrats and the involvement of organizations such as the Democratic Party, MoveOn.org, ACT, and the left-leaning blogosphere (they helped the Dems win in Kentucky's 6th Congressional District) will get out the vote in unprecedented numbers. On the other side, Bush's record on spending offends fiscal conservatives and his unwillingness to out and out ban abortion and gays offends Christian conservatives (though doing so would alienate suburban votes). These Bush people won't vote for the Democrats, but they might stay home.

Lastly, the Democratic Party and its opposition to Bush has benefited from the intense media coverage of the Democratic race. Witness Kerry and Edwards' rising numbers and Bush's dropping numbers. Keeping Edwards in the race will be better for both candidates.

We're going to clean house:

Daily Kos:

98 percent of districts reporting

And we ALL made it happen. From the cash, to the volunteers on the ground, to the good vibes.

Talking Points Memo

This was the first federal election of the 2004 cycle. Kerr based her campaign almost exclusively on her strong support for the Bush agenda. And the AP is now reporting that Chandler has beaten Kerr decisively. That marks the first time since 1991 that a Democrat has won a Republican seat in a special election.

In other words, they got roughly a 50-fold turnaround on their investment in the final two weeks of the campaign. And in case you're wondering one hundred grand is a lot of money in a House race.

Knight Ridder's Maria Recio reports: "Nader expected to launch new bid for the White House"

Some Nader advocates had an epiphany after the 2000 election when the outcome was decided by Florida. Bush won the state by 537 votes, defeating Democratic nominee Gore. Democrats say Gore would have won with a small fraction of Nader's voters, who gave Nader 97,488 votes in the state. Nader also arguably cost Gore New Hampshire, where Bush won by 7,211 votes. Nader received 22,198 votes in the Granite State.

Nader always has rejected the spoiler label. "It is not my job to elect my opponents," he has said.

Of course, Lawrence Lessig of Stanford Law School rejects Nader's rejection in an analysis vouched for by Glasstrack.

George Will poses "The 1st 28 Questions For Kerry" and what is evident is that Kerry's statements, votes, and positions are easily characterized as contradictory, fence-straddling, and unable to stand up to any analytical rigor. Assuming voters in the next several primaries (representing the majority of delegates) leave their brains at home when they go to the polls, will their anti-Bush sentiment be enough to hand Kerry a win in November?

Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of tax cuts, and all I get is a lousy $219.78?

Seems like a lousy trade for 3 million jobs lost, record deficits as far as the eye can see, and states struggling with reduced revenue and federal aid.

Maybe we can outsource the job of President to the Democrats and save the country a trillion dollars.

Pong 3D - a lot more addictive than you may think.

State: Touchscreen ballots don't have to be recounted

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - The Department of State has notified elections supervisors that touchscreen ballots don't have to be included during manual recounts because there is no question about how voters intended to vote.

While touchscreen ballot images can be printed, there is no need and elections supervisors aren't authorized to do so, Division of Elections Director Ed Kast wrote in a letter to Pasco County Supervisor of Elections Kurt Browning.

Nothing So Strange: A new documentary about the assassination of Bill Gates.

The most normal-looking Scion yet, the tC might actually be a cool car. Not for me, but for other people.

Based on the European market Avensis, the tC will feature a 17 inch wheels, 4 wheel disc brakes, and a 2.4 liter Camry engine outputting 160 hp and 165 lbs-ft of torque. A TRD supercharger kit will be available, boosting hp to 200 (!).

Here's the Edmunds write-up from NAIAS.

Is it over?

Only 15% of all delegates have been assigned to one of the Democratic candidates. At this point, John Kerry has 6%, Howard Dean has 4%, and John Edwards and Wesley Clark have 2% each. Yet the consensus among pundits and reporters is that the race is tied up for John Kerry! Dean has been written off, despite his second place standing, in much the same way that Kerry had been written off by last fall. The voters in Iowa proved the pundits wrong about John Kerry, yet the media have shown no qualms about anointing John Kerry as the presumptive nominee. Last I heard, the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC News, CNN, and MSNBC don't select a nominee; the choice is up to voters.

New York Times Delegate Count

Mickey Kaus of Slate.com and Kausfiles (admittedly anti-Kerry in his bias) offers this perspective on Kerry's front-runner status:

"If you a) take the number of delegates Kerry has won so far and b) add the number of superdelegates he already has according to the N.Y. Times (101) and c) assume he wins the remaining elected delegates at the same rate he's been winning them (approx. 52%) and d) assume, generously, he gets all the currently uncommitted superdelegates (about 500)—and [sic] Kerry still doesn't mathematically wrap up the nomination on March 2, the date of the huge 10 state superprimary, or even by the end of the March 9 four-state southern primary...."

What do you give an 800-lb gorilla? Anything he wants. And the gorillas that are California, New York, Texas, and Massachusetts have yet to decide.

But what about electability?

The question that apparently is first and foremost in the minds of many voters is some mythic notion known as electability, which according to Microsoft's spell-checker is not even a real word. In essence, since John Kerry won some prior contest, he's the one voters should support. If this is true, then no state outside Iowa and New Hampshire will ever have a say in the election of a President. It's important to understand the underlying concern which has given this question of electability such prominence: the election of George Bush to a second term would be a disaster. Yet the notion of electability is a sham.

The nation is divided 50-50, or, to be more accurate, 45-45. But even the so-called independents tend to lean one way or another, and vote appropriately on election day. In other words, the swing voter does not exist for all intents and purposes. Elections in the last decade have been won by exciting and mobilizing the base. The Republicans understand this very well; the Gingrich revolution, the close head-to-head match between Gore and Bush, the Republican gains in 2002—all of these efforts involved mobilizing the base and turning out the vote.

Yet some Democrats insist on adopting the so-called third way centrism of Clinton, pointing to his victories in '92 and '96 as proof of its effectiveness. But Clinton only won those elections by pluralities. In both elections, Perot ran as a third party candidate, cutting into the Republican vote, in much the same way that Nader cut into the Democratic vote in 2000. Yet the Clinton New Democrats took these less than inspiring victories as proof-positive that Democrats could only win as centrists, in much the same way that the Bush administration took his 500,000 vote loss to Gore as a mandate for radical policies that are out of line with most Americans.

The Democrats need a candidate who will stand up for American values and principles, a champion of positive change, an energizing force that Democrats and independents and Greens can rally around because this is how you win elections. For those of us who live in those states that represent 85% of the vote, we need to consider first and foremost not electability, but appeal. After all, the Democratic nominee will be supported in the general election by Democrats and progressives; if our choices now are based on media distortion of the importance of 15% of the vote, then we will be less than enthusiastic for the nominee, and if our enthusiasm is only lukewarm, that will be reflected in the turnout. Turnout is the most important aspect of this campaign. How important is it? In 2000, states like Florida, New Hampshire, Ohio, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania were determined by only a few percentage points, which translates to one or two voters per precinct! Every vote counts (except in Florida)!

The outlook

I am more optimistic now than I have ever been during this administration. More and more Americans are beginning to realize that George Bush does not deserve another term. His approval ratings are dipping below 50%, and the chickens are coming home to roost. Unless he quickly comes up with some job creation, health care, or education related program activities, he will continue to face sliding numbers. He will try to run as the wartime president and use the threat of terror and the language of fear to coerce Americans into accepting a second Bush term, but the newly Dean-inspired Democrats will counter with a message of hope and trust, jobs and health care, education and the future of our children. They will take on Bush for every lie and deception related to pre-war intelligence, the budget deficits, the tax cuts, the prescription drug benefit bill, the No Child Left Behind bill, the Healthy Forests initiative, the Clear Skies initiative, etc., etc.

Moreover, if elections are truly won by turning out the base, this primary season is an extremely positive sign. Turnout for all contests is much higher than it's been in recent elections, and all the Democrats have raised enough money together to compete with Bush head-to-head, toe-to-toe (they've spent most of it, but it's the sign of support that's important). It will still be a tough fight, but if everyone supports the eventual nominee and makes an effort to bring another five voters to the polls in November, Bush will follow his father as a one-term president.

Finally, if a good number of the 97,488 Nader 2000 supporters in Florida vote Democrat in November (Bush "won" by 537) and the Democratic nominee holds onto every Gore state, the electoral balance will shift in the Democrat's favor. While I agree with many of the things Nader was saying in 2000, and with the Green Party's political stances in general, the President of the United States has far too much power to risk a second Bush term. Go ahead and vote Green for local offices—even statewide offices—but there are times when it is better to be pragmatic than principled.

What this all means is that the Democratic nominee's chances are very good. So please choose the nominee who best represents your interests and values. Whether that is Clark, Dean, Edwards, Kerry, Kucinich, or Sharpton, don't waste your primary or caucus vote by voting "strategically"; there will be time enough for strategy in the general election.

For those of you who still want to vote strategically, consider this: open races make for more media coverage. More media coverage translates into free advertising for the Democratic message against Bush. His State of the Union speech got second billing to the media coverage of the Kerry-Dean upset and the Dean post-Iowa speech. The sagging poll numbers and the focus on the Democratic race pushed Bush in front of the cameras—not his best venue. Tim Russert skewered him. Let's keep the race open and exciting and dominate the airwaves.

The case for Dean

This wouldn't be a proper political blog post from me if there weren't a Dean blurb. And while I've certainly been guilty of pushing the horse-race invisible primary aspects of the nomination race, I'd like to list the main reasons I support Dean.

Howard Dean is the only candidate with executive experience who has delivered results and has the kind of long-term vision desperately needed in the United States. He is a principled pragmatist who worked with both sides of the aisle in Vermont to improve everyone's lives. Most importantly, he is a good man. Of all the candidates, he is the one in whom I would put my trust to lead the United States.

As governor of Vermont, Dean was a careful manager of the public's money. He balanced the budget every year, fending off demands from both sides of the aisle for unsustainable spending or tax cuts. Increased revenues through the latter half of the Clinton-Gore era were reserved in a rainy day fund that has helped Vermont stay in the black through the current recession and jobless recovery. Compare that to the vast majority of states who increased structural spending and cut marginal rates for the highest incomes with no regard for the business cycle. Better yet, compare that to the Bush administration's reckless fiscal policies with its ever expanding deficits and increasing debt. This is money that we are borrowing from the future. This crushing debt will be paid back by future generations, yet we are doing little to invest in our children to ensure that they will be able to do so. It's time to bring back fiscal sanity and tax fairness and stop shunting everything off to the future.

As a doctor and public servant, Dean has always been an advocate for universal health coverage and children's health care. 99% of Vermont's children are eligible for health insurance, and significant numbers of the elderly, the working poor, and the disabled have health insurance. He managed to achieve these results by building on existing programs and expanding them. He has vowed to do the same for the 44 million Americans who are without health insurance, and advance the United States to join the ranks of every other industrialized nation in the world. This is a moral and humanitarian cause, but it also makes sense in terms of dollars and cents. Emergency room care is the only health care the uninsured receive, and it is the most expensive form of health care, paid out of tax dollars. Preventative medicine is cheaper. We should pay for it and stop cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Howard Dean takes the long view. In addition to providing children with health insurance, Dean also implemented the Success by Six program and other early childhood programs, involving prenatal care, home visits, parenting training, and child care. As a result, child abuse and child sexual abuse rates dropped by more than 45%. Dean is a firm believer in the value of investing in children; considering the effects of early childhood on intellectual development, home environment on educational success, education on crime and income, and crime and income on communities, it makes sense to invest in small children today. This is the kind of long-term vision that Howard Dean would bring to the White House. As someone enrolled in a Planning program that stresses the importance of inter-connections, the future, and the consequences of our decisions, I have a special appreciation for his willingness to look beyond the 2, 4, and 6-year time horizons of most politicians, and think about the consequences 20 and 100 years into the future.

Howard Dean has guts and will. As governor, he got into fights with both sides of the aisle on contentious issues, and won. The most contentious of these was the issue of civil unions. This was not a fight he was looking for; it was thrust on him by the state Supreme Court. He asked the legislature to pass a law creating civil unions, knowing full well that the public could not accept something labeled gay marriage. Some legislators wanted to wait until after the looming election, but Dean insisted on getting the job done before the election and worked with them behind the scenes. Dean signed the unpopular law (polls showed 60% of Vermonters against the law) despite the death threats, and unknown to most people, campaigned for re-election in a bulletproof vest. He was not an advocate, but once the responsibility to do the right thing was his, he stood up and did the right thing.

As a candidate, Dean was one of the first to recognize the failings of the No Child Left Behind initiative. Dean was one of the first to stand up and speak out against the Iraq war, claiming that there was not an imminent threat that would justify invading the country. In fact, his willingness to stand up and question the Bush administration and the Democratic leadership is what initially drew so many people to his cause. It's obvious that the tone of the entire race has changed as a result of his candidacy. Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman all adopted his tone. Clark entered the race as Dean 2.0. As one Dean supporter put it, Dean is not an internist; he's a surgeon who gave all the Democrats a spine. It's not just the candidates, either. Many Democrats in the Congress have gotten the courage to become more vocal and daring in standing up for their principles. Considering Dean's early leadership role, one has to question whether we should support any candidate who has adopted Dean's tone (and sometimes his message), yet rolled over and died when critical votes on tax cuts, war, education, and the environment were on the line. Indeed, the value of legislative experience for an executive position is questionable, but when that experience shows a history of wrong votes and political hedging and unethical behavior, that experience recommends against that candidate...

(Sorry. It's been three years of Democrats treating Bush like some kind of unstoppable force and I'm fed up.)

Dean's a fighter. I know he'll have the courage to stand up for what's right. I know he'll tell the truth and be direct, even if it may cost him votes. That's the kind of person I want representing my values and my country. And I know he's got the kind of executive experience needed to lead the country.

What can we do to support Dean?

• Forward this post to everyone in your address book.
  
• Talk to everyone you know about why you support Dean.
  
• Help canvass your neighborhood and talk to strangers about supporting Dean.
  
• Donate money to the campaign.
  
• Put a bumper sticker on your car.
  
• Go to http://www.deanforamerica.com and sign up with the campaign. Click the Get Local link to find out upcoming events and activities in your area.

Time is getting critical. If too many more voters decide to follow the 15% = victory way of thinking, then Dean may not be able to win the nomination. However, we should still support him as much as possible. If he goes to the convention with a sizable contingent of delegates, he will have an impact on the Democratic platform, and we may therefore be able to get our message, if not our candidate, on the ballot in November. Besides, Kerry might fall down an open manhole somewhere. As Diane Watson said today, "to the bitter end."

I will support the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is. Until one is actually selected, I will support Howard Dean.

Oh, nevermind. That wasn't going to work out in any way. Anyway, back on point:

Sullivan's a Bush supporter and editor at the New Republic whose evaluation of Bush's performance on Meet the Press Sunday included choice words and phrases like "out of touch," "irrelevance," "out of his mind," "I don't know what he means," "lying," "damaging," and "catastrophe."

In summary, Sullivan states:

I'm not one of those who believes that a good president has to have the debating skills of a Tony Blair or the rhetorical facility of Bill Clinton. I cannot help liking the president as a person. I still believe he did a great and important thing in liberating Iraq (although we have much, much more to do). But, if this is the level of coherence, grasp of reality, and honesty that is really at work in his understanding of domestic fiscal policy, then we are in even worse trouble than we thought. We have a captain on the fiscal Titanic who thinks he's in the Caribbean.

Harsh words from an avowed Bush supporter. And as Russert pointed out during the interview, critiques from the right have not been uncommon:

But your base conservatives — and listen to Rush Limbaugh, the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, they're all saying you are the biggest spender in American history.

With regards to Sullivan, Kos thinks there might be something else going on:

Of course, Sullivan may simply be upset that Bush has affirmed his support for an anti-gay marriage amendment to the Constitution (an issue important to Sullivan). But whatever the reason, this president is so obviously over his head, that not even his usual apologists can stomach the task any longer.

Could the deficit and the burden of debt being placed on the next generation be an issue on which the Democrats can win? It won't be a unifying issue, but it could serve to suppress votes on the right and encourage votes on the left.

you guessed it. Special interests.

CNN.com - AP: Kerry earned $120,000 in speaking fees - Feb. 9, 2004

Back when federal lawmakers legally could be paid for speaking to outside groups, John Kerry collected more than $120,000 in fees from interests as diverse as big oil, tobacco, the liquor lobby and unions, records show.

One of the companies to pay Kerry $1,000 for a speech in 1987, Miami-based Metalbanc, was later indicted, along with two executives, on charges it helped the Cali drug cartel in Colombia launder money in the United States. The charges eventually were dropped because the firm was defunct.

New York Times Interactive Graphic: The Race for the Nomination

Only 14% of the delegates have been selected, and everyone's acting like it's already over.

Q: How many John Forbes Kerrys does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: Three. One to screw it in, one to vote against it, and one to explain that it was a "procedural" vote, that his recollection of the actual events is hazy, but that in reality he fully supports the screwing in of light bulbs.

"I've been fighting for screwing in lightbulbs for 30 years. When I was in Vietnam..."

"...and I led the fight in the Senate against the inhumane treatment of lightbulbs..."

...ugh.

Wonderful headline:

Kerry: Blocked Law, Donations Not Linked

Here's the backstory: Federal funding goes toward the Big Dig highway project, the project overpays the insurance company, the insurance company invests the money, then pays half the profits back to the project. That's right. Our federal tax dollars were being gambled on investments, and a big insurance company benefited. Sounds bad, right? Like something that should be stopped? But Mr. Kerry decided to block legislation designed to close this special interest loophole (you know, one of those things he always talks about) and profited from it:

Massachusetts Sen. Kerry said he had worked to block the legislation because it would have cost Boston's "Big Dig'" project $150 million. The legislation in 2000 aimed to close a loophole that had allowed the insurer to divert millions of federal dollars from the project.

The documents obtained by AP detail Kerry's effort as a member of the Senate Commerce Committee to persuade committee chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., to drop legislation that would have stripped $150 million from the Big Dig project and ended the insurance funding loophole.

Someone stop this sucker.

In the December 2003 issue of the Atlantic, George Soros discusses "The Bubble of American Supremacy." He likens the neo-conservative "pursuit of American supremacy" to a market bubble, in which "a misconception is reinforced by a trend prevailing in reality ... that is when a boom-bust process gets under way. Eventually the gap between reality and its false interpretation becomes unsustainable, and the bubble bursts." Good stuff.

As any good politician will tell you, it's not enough just to criticize; you need to offer solutions. Actually, good politicians won't tell you that, they'll do it. Not-so-good politicians will announce that this is the case and that they will therefore proceed to do it, and then do it. Postmodern era indeed.

Here is Soros' outline of the problem:

1. It is not a choice of "work with the United Nations and get nothing done" versus "work alone and get stuff done." Principle of sovereignty notwithstanding, the United Nations can and has been used to intervene in the internal affairs of states. Whatever its structural weaknesses, the United Nations offers a powerful cloak of legitimacy for any action, and, with its position of power and influence, it is the United States that, more often than not, borrows that cloak to pursue its goals.

2. It is not a choice of "military action" versus "do nothing." This is another false choice offered by the neo-conservative movement. When one looks at the success of the democratic and economic development of S. Korea, it should be noted that the transition from military rule toward democratic rule occurred simultaneously with the growth of Korea's consumer class and its close engagement with the world (i.e., 1988 Olympics). In China, encouraging signs of a similar transformation have appeared over the last decade. A word of caution, however; it is still too early to call, and there will need to be a critical mass of pro-democratic ideas and institutions before we see the cascade of change. Though these examples may be anecdotal in nature, they point to economic and political engagement as tools for fostering a middle class and thereby engendering democracy.

If we refute the false choices offered by the neo-conservatives, we can opt to follow a long-term strategy that involves engagement and economic and social development via international institutions.

Soros again:

Thanks to Glasstrack for the link.

BBC NEWS | Kay queries White House war talk

George Tenet defends the CIA in a speech:

In a hastily arranged speech at Georgetown University on Thursday, [CIA Director George] Tenet defended his agency's intelligence gathering practices and independence, saying it had not been coerced into being alarmist.

Tenet said he was satisfied with the intelligence assessment
Mr Tenet denied his agency had ever said there was an "imminent threat".

And David Kay raises the possibility of manipulation of intelligence by the White House:

Speaking in Washington on Thursday, [former chief US weapons inspector David] Kay said the apparent contradiction "raised the possibility that the intelligence community had been telling the White House one thing and the White House had been hearing something else."

He said the issue of whether politicians manipulated data to make the case for war "is an important question that needs to be understood".

Daily Kos posts the executive order creating the Commission on the intelligence capabilities of the United States regarding weapons of mass destruction and notes that "As you read through the order, note that it doesn't allow the commission to look at how the intelligence was used by the admininstration. Oh, and also no subpoena power. ... This commission is useless."

Is anyone surprised? Time to write letters to the editor.

LA Weekly: News: The Two John Kerrys

Sigh.

Thanks to Kos of Daily Kos:

Insight Magazine: Cheney's Staff Focus of Probe - Insight on the News - National

Kos also notes: "Hannah, by the way, is a 'senior national security aide' for Cheney, and was, in fact, the administration's main point of contact with Chalabi's INC."

Newsweek: Exclusive: Cheney and the ‘Raw’ Intelligence

Why is a GOP operative helping Al Sharpton? Read this story from the Village Voice:

The Village Voice: Features: Sleeping With the GOP by Wayne Barrett with special reporting by Adam Hutton and Christine Lagorio

The Massachusetts Senate asked the Supreme Judicial Court if they could do civil unions.

We have now been asked to render an advisory opinion on Senate No. 2175, which creates a new legal status, "civil union," that is purportedly equal to "marriage," yet separate from it.

The short answer: no.

Read the full answer here: Gay & Lesbian Marriage Decision: Mass. Supreme Judicial Court Feb. 3, 2004 Letter To Senate

Compiled by Howard Kurtz:

Edwards and Clark may not be slamming Kerry, but some of the pundits are, such as Andrew Sullivan:

"Kerry, who buried his applause lines in the gray lava of his monotone, got his loudest cheers when he entered the room. Once he opened his mouth the energy began to seep away -- at any rate, in the 'overflow' room from where we watched Kerry on a giant screen. Listening to him, I saw a long line of Democratic bores -- Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Bradley, Gore -- who lost because people could not bear listening to them. John Kerry belongs in their dreary company."

The rest of Kurtz's All-Purpose Spin Guide is pretty funny for its predictions of the spin that will be put on the different outcomes of today's races.

Washington Post: Powell Says New Data May Have Affected War Decision

Asked if he would have recommended an invasion knowing Iraq had no prohibited weapons, Powell replied: "I don't know, because it was the stockpile that presented the final little piece that made it more of a real and present danger and threat to the region and to the world." He said the "absence of a stockpile changes the political calculus; it changes the answer you get."

If he were towing the new line on Iraq, he'd say that the humanitarian case for war made action urgent.

It's important to prevent the Republicans from making this an action-inaction issue. The real issue was, given Hussein's bad behavior and untrustworthiness, what was the best solution for dealing with him, given the ongoing threat of terrorism? War? Inspections backed by the threat of force? As it turns out, the aerial bombing campaigns and the inspections regime was working pretty damn well, and would have allowed us to avoid the mounting casualties and costs we are facing today. Continuing inspections would have allowed us to focus on diplomatic tactics to gain further coordination in the effort to identify, infiltrate, and stop terrorist organizations. Iraq was an 800-ton red herring that we now have to live with, to the detriment of other issues.

Powell offers this interesting hint:

"I have confidence in the intelligence community," Powell said. "I've seen them do many things that were absolutely brilliant in their concept and their execution, many things we'll never be able to discuss and will never get a headline." With a twinkle in his eye, he added: "Very recently, as a matter of fact. Go research that if you wish."

Is he implying that the Code Orange alert was a real threat that was dealt with secretly?

playerthree shockwave games

Op-Ed Contributor: Givers and Takers

Brilliant. Bush-supporters are government dependent good-for-nothings! Or something along those lines. ;)

MSNBC - Cash and Kerry

Johnny Chung, soft money, hypocrisy.

Human Rights Watch World Report 2004: War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention

I haven't read this completely, but it looks good.

For hard-core Democrats who long to see a donkey kick the Shrub out of the White House, John Kerry's macho posturing, borrowed phrases, cliches, and puns might make him seem like a winner, but supporters ought to learn a hard lesson from the Dean campaign.

Prior to the vagaries of the Iowa caucuses, the echo chamber of the Dean blog and the circle of political pundits had all assumed Dean would sweep the early contests and move on to take the nomination. But Dean's Iowa Perfect Storm turned into a perfect storm of poor management, negative campaigning, and negative press, leaving him with a third place finish and a severely weakened position for every other race. The Iowa lesson? Outside the echo chamber, caucus-goers were tuning in at the last minute and choosing the candidates projecting positive images. Before Kerry-backers do too much self-congratulating, they should understand that the road to the White House is a long, hard slog.

But there is also a post-Iowa lesson. While the leader of the free world promoted marriage and discouraged steroid use by athletes, top billing was given to Kerry because he had beaten Dean. Second billing went to Dean, because he provided that 15 second clip (out of context!) of Wrestlemania fervor, which dominated the national talk shows and news programs. Bush and Edwards both lost airtime to the man who beat Dean and the man who screamed. As it happens, much of the American public was exposed to the Democratic race and began to wonder if Kerry could (or should) supplant Bush. Newsweek's post New Hampshire poll showed Kerry favored over Bush 48 to 46. That's right. Kerry the uninspired, rambling, Senatorial politician from Massachusetts beating Bush the bumbling, wartime President from Texas.

There is no way Kerry could have garnered all of this attention by himself. And that's the first step in taking on Bush. Like it or not, the media are fascinated by Dean and the entire Deaniac movement, and the longer Dean stays in the race, the better it is for whoever wins the Democratic nomination. Americans need to know what this party stands for before they'll touch the screen, fill the oval, or punch the chad for the nominee, and Democrats ought to cherish whatever free publicity they can get.

Whichever way this nomination race turns out, the Democrats owe Howard Dean a lot: he made it okay to stand up and oppose George Bush, he showed them how to raise money, and he's grabbed the media spotlight for the Democrats. If this were a just world, these accomplishments alone would win him the nomination.