We are not the People's Republic of Florida

Why does everything under the Governor need to be the People's? Are we a socialist nation? I assume that the Governor believes that this is somehow reminding people that we pay taxes, and taxes pay for the government. Perhaps he views the socialist language as an anti government take on things... but it is becoming ridiculous.

Today the Governor released his budget. A suggested guideline for the Legislature to embrace. What is the link to that suggested budget?

www.thepeoplesbudget.state.fl.us

I think he is taking it to far. I haven't had the chance to review more than the link, but I wanted to get it out here for you to review too. Not just to make fun of the Governor's propaganda language, but also so that you can actually review what the is being proposed for this fiscal year.

Hillary

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid988092926/bctid1377935786

Hillary Clinton is Tracey Flick from the movie "election". Click on the link and watch the under 3 minute clip.

Record Turnout in Florida

Florida Democrats defied analysts and turned out huge yesterday. More than 1.7 million Democrats (per the Florida Democratic Party) voted in Tuesday's primary. Choosing Hilary Clinton as their nominee, with Obama far behind.

For all the talk of a 'high' turnout, only around 30% of Floridians cast ballots yesterday. Not even half of eligible voters. According to the 2006 U.S. Census Bureau, theoretically, around 13 million people are eligible to vote. Literally, only 3% of the (theoretical) eligible population participated is choosing our nominee.*

We definitely turned out voters better than previous years. But, the numbers of people participating in the political process remains dismal.

(*Don't hold me to the math. It is not necessarily my strong suite.)



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/30/florida-voters-turn-out-f_n_84004.html

"A close Republican presidential race and a proposal to lower property taxes brought out Florida voters in large numbers Tuesday.

Turnout was estimated at 30 percent, with about 3 million voters casting ballots _ 1.4 million Democrats and 1.6 million Republicans. That was well up from the approximately 20 percent who cast ballots in the 2000 and 2004 presidential primaries, which was held after the nominees were decided, and the 2006 gubernatorial primary."

The Results Are In--Floridians chose wrong

I am sure we all were surprised here in Leon County to see this pass. Here, it was defeated it 64% to 36%. The exact opposite of the rest of the state.
________________

Originally published January 30, 2008
Tax plan passes: The people have spoken
By Jim Ash
FLORIDA CAPITAL BUREAU CHIEF

ST. PETERSBURG — Amendment 1 passed easily Tuesday night, riding comfortably on the coattails of its No. 1 supporter, Gov. Charlie Crist, and defying pollsters.

Realtors gathered in a hotel bar at the bay front Renaissance Vinoy Resort cheered as the results were splashed across large-screen TV's. Fireworks could be seen exploding over Tampa Bay.

"The people of Florida have spoken and they have demanded relief, tax relief," Lt. Gov. Jeff Kottkamp told a cheering crowd of about 50 supporters. "This is a great day for Florida."

With 99 percent of the precincts reporting, here was the vote on Amendment 1:

# Yes: 2.63 million votes, 64 percent

# No: 1.47 million, 36 percent

The victory was more about the dismal state of Florida's economy and lawmakers will have to be more creative than ever to keep schools afloat, warned Florida Education Association chief Andy Ford, one of the measure's chief critics.

"Tonight the voters of Florida have indicated that they are strapped financially and that they need immediate relief ... even at the cost of funding our schools and other vital services," he said in a written statement.

Buoyed by the results, lawmakers are poised for another round of tax- cutting proposals, including measures that would make it easier for property owners to challenge their assessments in court and giving breaks to waterfront hotels and marinas.

"This is not the end of the fight," said Sen. Mike Haridopolos, R-Indialantic and a key Senate negotiator for the proposal. "I think it sends the message that the people of Florida are ready to put a limit on the money local government spends."

The results mean that for the first time, homeowners will be able to take their accumulated Save Our Homes assessment savings with them when they move. Homes worth more than $50,000 will get a boost to their $25,000 homestead exemption, but not for school taxes, saving the average homeowner $240.

Commercial and non-homestead property owners will see a 10 percent annual Save Our Homes-like cap on their assessments. Businesses will get a $25,000 exemption on the tangible personal property taxes they pay on items such as equipment, wiping more than 1 million small businesses off the rolls entirely.

Opponents, including teachers, firefighters and government worker unions, were bracing for the worst. Teachers predicted more failing schools and local governments warned about loss of services and cutbacks in police and fire protection.

The race was close until the polls opened. Crist adviser and former Chief of Staff George LeMieux said earlier in the day that internal polls as late as Sunday showed the measure reaching only 59 percent, just 1 percent shy of the 60 percentage points needed for passage.

The passage was not only a personal victory for Crist, but a testament to the power of fundraising. Supporters at Yes on 1 racked up more than $4.1 million, including $1 million donations each from the Florida Association of Realtors and Florida Power & Light.

Opponents, including the Florida Education Association and the Florida Professional Firefighters and the Florida League of Cities, raised a little more than $2 million.

Chris Rock on the Candidates

glumbert - Chris Rock's 2008 Election Analysis

Size Does Matter

IT'S OFFICIAL: WITH 5 DAYS TO GO, MORE DEMS HAVE VOTED IN FLORIDA THAN IN EACH OF THE EARLY CONTESTS IN IA, NH & NV

Despite five active Presidential campaigns, GOP turnout remains unremarkable

TALLAHASSEE - With Election Day still five days away, thousands more Democrats have cast their votes in the Florida Presidential Primary than in each of the early contests in Iowa, New Hampshire or Nevada. Additionally, early turnout among Democrats is already triple what it was in the 2004 Florida Presidential Primary.

An incredible 295,932 Florida Democrats have voted so far (125,126 absentee and 170,806 early through 1/23/08), and this does not include more than 100,000 Democratic absentee ballots that have yet to be returned. By Tuesday, overall early turnout could quadruple 2004's numbers in which only 97,741 Democrats voted early or absentee.

"The enthusiasm among Democrats is palpable," Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen L. Thurman said. "Despite all the fuss over delegates, Democrats are going to the polls and making their voices heard in this open election. The votes will be counted, and the nation is going to be watching on Tuesday night to find out who Florida Democrats want as their nominee."

As the final early state primary before the potentially decisive Feb. 5th contests in 24 states, Florida could have an enormous impact on both the Democratic and Republican races. This early excitement in spite of the primary controversy bodes extremely well for the November general election.

Another good sign for November: Democratic absentee voting is proportionally higher than in any recent election, and more Democrats than Republicans have voted early. Republicans have traditionally held a large advantage with absentee voters, however, Democrats have significantly cut into their lead in 2008.

Moreover, Democratic absentee requests have climbed to more than 75% of their totals in the 2006 general election while Republicans have only reached 60% of their 2006 total - a marked decline that could illustrate low interest in their primary.

The total Democratic votes cast in the Iowa caucuses have been estimated at 239,000. In New Hampshire, almost 288,000 people voted in the open Democratic primary. In Nevada, 120,000 caucused for Democrats.

In Florida's 2004 Presidential Primary, according to the Secretary of State, 93,909 Democrats voted absentee and 3,832 voted early (it was not until the 2004 general election that early voting was standardized statewide.) for a total of 97,741 votes cast prior to the actual day of the primary.

A sampling of recent news stories on Democratic enthusiasm in Florida:

Jerusalem Post: Dems Skip Florida, But Jewish Voters Still Engaged
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1201070769786&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

WESH 2 News Orlando: Dems Say They Will Vote in Fla. Primary
http://www.wesh.com/politics/15123813/detail.html

USA Today: Florida Democrats Eager to Vote Despite Candidates' Boycott
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-16-florida_N.htm

The Atlantic: Absentee Explosion in Florida
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/florida_primary_turnout_as_of.php

Associated Press: Early Voting Crucial To Campaigns Needing Boost From Fla. Primary
http://www.wftv.com/elections/15102140/detail.html

St. Pete Times: Early Vote May Be Decisive in Florida
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/01/25/State/Early_vote_may_be_dec.shtml

Miami Herald: Democrats Campaigning - On Paper
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/florida/v-print/story/392916.html

10 Reasons to Support Reproductive Justice on Roe Day

One important link in the article is to a blog about forced or coerced sterilization that I thought all should take the time to read.

Published on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 by The Huffington Post
10 Reasons to Support Reproductive Justice on Roe Day
by Jill Filipovic

35 years after Roe v. Wade solidified American womens’ right to abortion, reproductive rights remain in limbo. And while abortion rights are crucial to women’s health and autonomy, they are hardly the end-all be-all to reproductive justice — even if the constant attacks on those rights (and on the people who provide women with them) have forced the pro-choice movement to remain on the defensive about abortion in particular.

Roe at 35 is in bad shape. But there are plenty of forward-looking, positive steps to be taken. It’s worth raising a glass to Roe today — but even more importantly, it’s time to get out and fight. Here are a few reasons why:
10. Abortion is already inaccessible and out of reach for many women.
9. If abortion is illegal, then women and doctors will be criminals.
8. Anti-choicers care about controlling your sex life, not saving babies.
7. They’re going after your birth control, too.
6. Illegal abortion kills women.
5. Legal abortion is good for women, men and families.
4. Poor women and women of color are disproportionately impacted by anti-choice policies.
3. Choice isn’t just about not giving birth — it’s about your right to have children.
2. Anti-choicers are also going after the rights of women around the world.
1. Reproductive justice is about you.

Roe v. Wade: The Next 35 Years

On January 22, 2008, the Roe v. Wade decision turns 35 years old. Thanks to that decision, the women of my generation came of age knowing that safe abortion care would be available—at least for those of us who can afford the procedure, find a provider, reach a clinic, take the time off from work, find child care, get a parent’s or a court’s permission, and overcome any other practical obstacles that women frequently encounter when trying to obtain an abortion in the United States today.

The women of my generation also have grown up amidst a debate that equates reproductive rights solely with abortion rights and preventing unintended pregnancy.

Good Article on the Center for American Progress Blog about Roe V. Wade.


Celebrate the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and welcome Florida NOW state president Jessica Davis McCaffrey and Planned Parenthood of N. Central Florida CEO and other speakers at the steps of the Old Capitol (note new location) 5:30-6:30 pm Tuesday, January 22. We will have a candlelight vigil and a speak out about how the issue has affected us personally. After, we will adjourn to Andrews' Grill on Adams Street to discuss anti-choice bills in the upcoming legislative session.

Happy Birthday MLK Jr.

Erica Contreras chair of the YDA Minority Caucus sent these inspirational quotes today:

Enjoy these quotes while we use this day to remember Dr. King, and all civil rights leaders...

"All men are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality."

"Faith is taking the first step, even when you don't see the whole
staircase."

"Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love
harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illuminates it."

"Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted."

"I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the
final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated, is
stronger than evil triumphant. "

"I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells
him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment
in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its
injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law."

- More quotations on: [Laws]
"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the
silence of our friends."

- More quotations on: [Silence]
"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can
stop him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important."

"Let no man pull you low enough to hate him."

"Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats
away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his
objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the
ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the
false with the true. "

"Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects
revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method
is love."

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that
matter."

- More quotations on: [Silence]
"Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper
darkness to a night already devoid of stars... Hate cannot drive out
hate: only love can do that."

"Segregation is the adultery of an illicit intercourse between
injustice and immorality."

"Ten thousand fools proclaim themselves into obscurity, while one
wise man forgets himself into immortality."

- More quotations on: [Immortality]
"We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as
fools."

"When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong,
you cannot be too conservative."

- More quotations on: [Conservatives] [Liberals]
"The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined
nonconformists who are dedicated to justice, peace and brotherhood."

"All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings
us face to face with another problem."

"The good neighbor looks beyond the external accidents and discerns
those inner qualities that make all men human and, therefore,
brothers."

"Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral
questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression
and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind
must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge,
aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is
love."

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

- More quotations on: [Justice]
"The church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and
principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed
the mores of society."

"Now, I say to you today my friends, even though we face the
difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a
dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one
day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its
creed: - 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal.'"

- More quotations on: [Dreams]
"I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something he will
die for, he isn't fit to live."

"...And I've looked over, and I've seen the promised land. I may not
get there with you, but I want you to know tonight that we as a
people will get to the promised land. So I'm happy tonight. I'm not
worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man."

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance
and conscientious stupidity."

- More quotations on: [Stupidity] [Ignorance]
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided
missiles and misguided men."

- More quotations on: [Science]
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of
comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge
and controversy."

Florida Red & Blue Training in Tallahassee

RSVP For Training Here

News from the Human Rights Campaign

Momentum is building in the fight against Florida's
anti-gay marriage amendment!

First two trainings in Orlando and Ft. Lauderdale a success!
Attend additional trainings across Florida and learn how you can help
defeat this harmful amendment.


Florida Red & Blue is organizing a campaign against the November state constitutional amendment that would ban same sex marriage --already illegal in Florida-- and eliminate domestic partnerships for all couples - straight and gay. HRC is a leading partner of Florida Red & Blue. Health benefits are on the line, and we need your help now!

Will you volunteer a few hours this month to help build a campaign to defeat this harmful amendment?

Please RSVP to one of our volunteer training Above! Join us at a local training at the Family Tree so we can get you involved at a polling location near you for a few hours on Tuesday, January 29th.

If you happen to be too far from Tallahassee, but still want to get involved, please email Toby Quaranta at toby.quaranta@hrc.org or call him at 202-459-3307.

View pictures and read all about the recent success at both the Orlando and Ft. Lauderdale trainings by viewing HRC's blog!

Rep. Wexler takes the floor

Here is an excerpt from Rep. Wexler's email this week:

Last night, I took to the floor of the House of Representatives and outlined our case as to why this Congress must hold immediate hearings on Rep. Kucinich’s Articles of Impeachment.

I didn’t do it alone: I was armed with nearly 200,000 signatures of support from you and so many others. Please watch the video of this speech and forward it to as many people as possible. I've posted it on the front page of www.WexlerWantsHearings.com

This morning, I delivered letters to all of my colleagues in the House of Representatives, urging them to support Cheney Impeachment Hearings. You can read a copy of both the letter to my colleagues as well as the letter to Chairman Conyers I am asking them to sign at:
http://www.wexlerforcongress.com/news.asp?ItemID=230

Additionally, I have delivered to my colleagues in the Judiciary Committee a list of names who have signed up at www.WexlerWantsHearings.com. We now have almost 200,000 patriotic Americans dedicated to this cause.

We are beginning to make some progress. I have urged the Democratic Leadership to enforce the subpoenas being ignored by Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten by holding them in contempt of Congress

The Representative is making progress. Please spread the word to your friends.

Skip Campbell to run, and take out Sen. Atwater

For Immediate Release: January 16, 2008
Contact: John Reid, 850.591.4320


NEWS FROM THE FLORIDA DEMOCRATIC PARTY Photo Credit

SKIP CAMPBELL ANNOUNCES CANDIDACY FOR FLORIDA SENATE DISTRICT 25

Former South Florida Senator Vows to Change the Direction of Florida and Take on the Status Quo on Behalf of all Floridians

FORT LAUDERDALE - Floridians long dismayed over the inability of state government to tackle escalating property insurance rates, skyrocketing gas prices, and high dollar contracts to special interests may soon regain one of their strongest allies in Tallahassee.

Skip Campbell on Wednesday announced his candidacy for Florida Senate District 25. The tireless champion for consumers' rights and children's interests said he intended to reestablish a voice for the majority of Floridians who have become disillusioned by the status quo.

"When elected, I will take on the pay-to-play culture that corrupts our state politics and provide a voice for the people of Florida who feel too often neglected by their government," said Campbell.

The Ft. Lauderdale Democrat, who previously served for a decade in the Legislature, was known for his maverick opposition to the insurance industry's attempts to overrun state regulators for higher rates, his struggle to suspend the state's gas tax to ease the high fuel price Floridians faced at the pump, and his lone battle to locate state contracts worth millions of dollars sent offshore to places such as India. Campbell also made history when, along with another Democratic lawmaker, he sued the state Department of Education to force the agency to reveal the inadequate skills of temporary workers grading the controversial FCAT exam.

"Since leaving the Senate, I have watched the Republican-dominated Florida Legislature continue to move in the wrong direction. Something needs to be done," said Campbell. "The go-along-to-get-along policies have brought our state to the edge of a financial cliff that threatens to topple the quality of life Floridians expect in the Sunshine State and their ability to pay for it.

"We need a fighter in the Tallahassee ring. Not another special interest ringer."

First elected in 1996, Skip Campbell's advocacy for the little guy extended to more than just Tallahassee. An attorney, Campbell successfully took on some of the most powerful corporations, such as State Farm, DuPont, Roche, and Allstate.

Raised in a deeply religious blue-collar family, Campbell learned firsthand the value of hard work and determination. Married to his wife Lynn for 37 years, one of his fondest memories is the financially strapped couple's first Christmas together. Asked what she wanted for Christmas, Campbell's wife simply replied, "A pot roast."

In the community, Skip Campbell is a past chairman of the local National Multiple Sclerosis Society, board member for Kids in Distress, and member of the Legal Advocates Committee of the Miami Project to Cure Paralysis.

The 25th District of the Florida Senate is currently represented by Republican Jeff Atwater, who is slated to be the next Senate President if he manages to survive his reelection bid. Atwater is most known for his close ties to big business groups, particularly insurance companies who have contributed over $250,000 to his campaigns and political action committees. Campbell, a Democrat, will officially file papers this week to challenge Atwater in the November 2008 election.


# # #

Human Rights Delegations (Bosnia, Guatemala, Rwanda, Venezuela) -- Deadline: January 25, 2008

I wanted to share this email:

Greetings from Global Youth Connect!

We are writing to ask for your assistance in sharing information regarding our summer 2008 international human rights training programs with young leaders (ages 18-30) in your network who may be interested in participating in one of our upcoming human rights delegations to Bosnia, Guatemala, Rwanda or Venezuela. Brief information on each program can be found below and more detailed application information is available on our website at: www.globalyouthconnect.org/participate. The deadline to receive applications is January 25, 2008.


Global Youth Connect is an international human rights organization which is building and supporting a community of youth who are actively promoting and protecting human rights, and educating and inspiring the next generation to work for peaceful change. We have been organizing international human rights delegations since 2001. Please visit our website to learn more about our work: www.globalyouthconnect.org.

We greatly appreciate your help in making sure we get the word out to talented and motivated young leaders who might be interested in this unique international opportunity for learning, service and connection for human rights, conflict resolution and peacebuilding.

Best wishes,

Jennifer Kloes
Executive Director
Global Youth Connect
www.globalyouthconnect.org
Acting together for compassion, human rights and responsibility


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Human Rights Delegations for Young Leaders -- Summer 2008

Program Locations: Bosnia, Guatemala, Rwanda & Venezuela

Application Deadline: January 25, 2008

Global Youth Connect, an international human rights organization, is pleased to announce that we are accepting applications from young leaders (ages 18-30) for our Summer 2008 international human rights delegations. Program locations include: Bosnia, Guatemala, Rwanda and Venezuela.

Human rights delegations are a unique, first-hand opportunity to cross cultural boundaries and learn about the daily reality of human rights as experienced in a complex and increasingly globalized world. Each delegation weaves together three core sets of activities: site visits to local organizations, hands-on fieldwork projects, and a human rights training workshop with local youth activists.

Bosnia (June 29 - July 18, 2008)
Program Tuition: $2,750

This delegation will explore the roots of the conflict and the dynamics of justice, reconciliation and peacebuilding as experienced in Bosnia. Participants will gain experience in conflict resolution and transformation and deepen their understanding of the post-conflict challenges faced by Bosnians today, especially youth. Participants will have an opportunity to meet with Bosnian NGOs working on issues of human rights, community development, youth empowerment, and conflict resolution. The program will also include a workshop with Bosnian youth and the opportunity to work hands-on with local organizations to assist them in their daily activities.

Guatemala (June 15 - July 13, 2008)

Program Tuition: $2,750



This delegation will explore the roots of violence and social injustice in Guatemala, with a particular focus on the country's indigenous population. We will seek to better understand the legacy of Guatemala's 36-year armed conflict and the impact of violence, both past and present, on the Guatemalan people, as well as reflect on how policies and practices in the U.S.have affected the lives of ordinary Guatemalans. Delegation activities will center on supporting the efforts of grassroots human rights activists working to promote and defend the political, social, economic and cultural rights of all Guatemalans. Spanish proficiency is required.

Rwanda (June 14 - July 13, 2008)

Program Tuition: $2,450

This delegation will explore the roots of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, how this legacy of violence has impacted the country and its people, particularly Rwandan youth, and also how the country is attempting to rebuild today. We will examine issues of truth, justice and reconciliation in the context of post-conflict Rwanda and what is needed to strengthen local institutions and programs dedicated to promoting a culture of respect for human rights. Participants will connect with young Rwandans and get involved in a variety of collaborative projects aimed at promoting human rights as well as meet with leading human rights defenders, government representatives, international institutions, youth and others from local communities to learn more about the political, economic and social challenges faced by Rwandans today.

Venezuela (July 26 - August 17, 2008)
Program Tuition: $2,250

The delegation will explore the rise of social change movements and human rights activism in present-day Venezuela, both on the grassroots level and as represented by national government programs. Through hands-on participation in partnership with grassroots organizations, participants will investigate present-day human rights concerns along with the response of government and civil society. A major theme of the program will be to examine the relationship of grassroots human rights organizations with a national government expressly concerned with promoting respect for human rights, democratic reform, and the redistribution of wealth. Delegation activities will focus in particular on the efforts of young human rights activists to promote
and sustain a just, equitable, democratic, and peaceful society. Spanish proficiency is required.

Application Deadline: January 25, 2008

How to Apply: We invite interested young leaders to apply. We are looking for participants who are between the ages of 18-30 and who possess U.S. citizenship or residency as well as international students studying full-time at a U.S. college or university. Most importantly, applicants should wish to expand their knowledge and understanding of human rights and social justice. Participants will become part of a growing global movement of youth acting together for compassion, human rights and responsibility.

For detailed information on program activities, costs, fundraising/financial aid, and application information, please visit our website:

www.globalyouthconnect.org/participate


Best wishes,

Jennifer Kloes
Executive Director
Global Youth Connect
www.globalyouthconnect.org
Acting together for compassion, human rights and responsibility



_________________________________________________________________

A comic to think about today

Double Click on the picture to be able to see it better.

Road to the Greenhouse

This is (obviously) a parody.
No matter what side of the aisle you are on (veg or not), this is at least amusing.

Why I’m Still Not for Hillary Clinton

Published on Thursday, January 10, 2008 by Salon.com

Why I’m Still Not for Hillary Clinton
Women voters rallied en masse for her — but she has run as a stereotypical male and represents the same old cowardly Clintonian politics.

by Frances Kissling

In the wake of Hillary Clinton’s surprising win Tuesday and all the wrongheaded punditry leading up to it, there has been much discussion about why women voters rallied en masse for her in New Hampshire. Some believe she benefited from a powerful backlash against her many eager naysayers in the media. But whatever the reason for her campaign’s resurgence, I still don’t buy Clinton as the women’s candidate.

I’m a lifelong feminist activist. In this crucial election, I am supporting John Edwards, whose economic policies I think will best serve women. Barack Obama is a close second, with Hillary Clinton a distant third. At first, as a feminist, I felt strange, almost embarrassed not to support Clinton, but it wasn’t a tough decision. I did some soul searching, and in the end there were too many issues of principle on which she was willing to compromise. Her commitment to practicality over principle made it hard to be enthusiastic about her candidacy.

At the same time, watching Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire was a roller-coaster ride — there were moments when I just wanted to throw in the towel and support her, those flashes of humanity and passion, the confidence she expresses in her record, the reality that she probably is the good person her husband says she is. I imagine her frustration with people like me who sell her short and will not settle for the conventional wisdom of what a woman has to do to get elected and trust her. And then she would frustrate me with her almost absolute inability to understand that being a leader is much more than an exercise in competency; it is the ability to capture people’s imaginations and make them believe that there is indeed hope. The low point was her dismissal of Obama’s and Edwards’ visionary platforms as false hopes. Jung’s bad mother wagging her finger at the boys who dared to promise the American people more than they could deliver was too much.

I contrast the closing speeches from New Hampshire: Obama’s three words — “yes, we can” — and Clinton’s heartfelt claim of having found her voice, an unspoken acknowledgment that she had to learn and she learned it. One goes to bed with the feeling that the next six weeks will include a national opportunity for all but the far right to take apart questions of race, gender, class and political integrity. In a way, it is the first 21st century election. Will Obama force Clinton into the new millennium? Can she meet my expectations?

Then her record enters my consciousness: her votes on Iraq, the Patriot Act and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

I wonder if I am, as antifeminists are constantly taunting, one of those women who is jealous of other women? Am I harder on women than on men? After all, the first qualified woman who becomes president is not likely to be everything a feminist would like her to be. Am I just not practical enough to hold my nose and go with a qualified woman? Clinton is to be respected for her intelligence, knowledge of the issues and consistent work for social justice. There is no one best person to be president, and there is no doubt in my mind that, if elected, on most issues she will make good decisions, do the best that can be done in difficult circumstances and, as would Edwards and Obama, work to change some elements of the debacle of the Bush years.

But her approach to Iraq leads me to think she would more quickly and inappropriately use military power than other Democrats, and that is impossible to ignore.

The decision about whom to support is also based on more subtle issues of character, a sense of where the candidates will lead us and how much of a socially transformative vision for America they have. Being a feminist means not only supporting policies that improve women’s lives, but that lead to a new understanding of women’s and men’s nature, identity and role in the world. It means an unrelenting attention to the questions of exclusion and marginalization, and to leveling the playing field. Asking whether Clinton is that person is not just a fair question, it is the feminist question. In answering that question, the history of centrist Democrats and Clintonism must be confronted.

Now, I’ve never been a centrist Democrat and everything I have seen of Clintonism and the Democratic Leadership Council confirms that women are far down their priority lists. But there must be some small space in the political world in which women are important. It is also not to say that Clinton doesn’t care about women — of course she does, and she has supported and will support many policies that improve women’s health, employment and education. Perhaps one hears so little of that commitment on the campaign trail because it is assumed that the woman candidate does not have to talk about those issues. But whatever the reason, there is no evidence that Clinton’s feminist history currently influences her thinking about women, or that it is any further advanced than Obama’s and Edwards’ thinking.

The sad fact is that Clinton has felt compelled to run as a stereotypical male. In her own mind it is only a certain kind of man who is qualified to be president and she will be that man: tough on everything from war, flag burning, kids’ access to video games, illegal immigrants and Palestinians. She has missed the opportunity to talk about what it really means for women to be equal in this country. She has shown no interest in using her extensive international experience to push for more women in party leadership, state legislatures and even the Senate. A woman candidate who considered her gender a strength (as opposed to something she needed to overcome) would announce a series of measures specifically designed to ensure that women’s needs and rights were at the forefront of her agenda.

For example, she might begin by following the European example and create a Cabinet post on women. In addition to outlining her foreign policy in Foreign Affairs, she might write about women from a thoroughly modern perspective. As important as they are there is nothing new about talking about issues such as violence against women or research on women’s health issues or funding family planning at home and abroad. We need a candidate who advocates for the economic benefits that women all over Europe — and increasingly women in developing countries — have: better support for the retirement of women who do not work outside the home, paid family and medical leave, expansion of Social Security benefits to spouses (mostly women). And we need a feminist candidate for president who is not afraid of issues such as gay marriage, adoption and America’s changing attitudes toward women’s sexuality and all sexuality.

When John Edwards stepped up to the podium to concede victory to Barack Obama, he said, “The one thing that is clear here in Iowa is that the status quo lost and change won.” I do not want a feminism that is part of the status quo, and so I do not want the first woman president to be a Clintonian. Every time Hillary Clinton puts on the mantle of the Bill Clinton presidency and reminds us of how important it is to be practical and work with the other side to get things done, I think of every cowardly practical choice that Bill Clinton (or should I say the Clintons together) made. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” sellout of gays in the military; the abandonment of Lani Guinier; a failed healthcare reform package that would have sacrificed women’s reproductive health to the Catholic Church’s demands as moral arbiter; a welfare reform bill that actually hurt poor women and their families; and presidential approval of a permanent ban on Medicaid funds for poor women seeking abortions.

The women’s movement, along with other progressive movements, did little to challenge the Clinton administration to live up to its campaign promises. And now it seems that the longtime women’s movement is falling into the same trap over Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Just read the feckless and stale defense of Clinton’s record on the war posted on the National Organization for Women’s Web site to get a sense of how willing some in the feminist establishment are to defend any woman, regardless of her track record.

But some women aren’t buying it. We’d like to see a woman president, but more than anything we want to be able to say at the end of the first woman’s tenure in the highest political office that it really mattered. That the first woman president did things no man would have done, that feminist values were at the core of her decisions — and that the country was on the road to further transformation.

Frances Kissling is the president of Catholics for a Free Choice.

Copyright ©2008 Salon Media Group, Inc.

Playing the Class Card

	Published on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 by TruthDig.com Playing the Class Card by Robert Scheer As long as Hillary Clinton, and now Gloria Steinem, has chosen to play the women’s card against the race card, let me throw in a third one: the class card. Clinton claimed in the New Hampshire primary debate that she is the unmistakable agent for change because she is a woman and her election as president would send a strong signal of a new day aborning to America and the rest of the world. It is hoped that it would be a more progressive message than the one sent by Margaret Thatcher’s ascent in England. Steinem put a finer point on the argument in her New York Times commentary, published Tuesday, New Hampshire’s primary election day, arguing that women get wonderfully more “radical” as they age, and therefore older women are more inclined to vote for Clinton, Steinem’s preferred candidate, as opposed to Barack Obama, whom younger women went for in Iowa. Maybe those younger women were more worried about how to pay off college loans or swelling mortgage obligations than gender identity. What is radical about voting for a corporate lawyer who, in defense of her Arkansas savings and loan shenanigans, once said you can’t be a lawyer without working for banks? Steinem boasts of Clinton’s “unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House” without referencing the Clinton White House’s giveaways to corporate America at the expense of poor and working Americans, the majority of them being women. Sen. Clinton’s key election operative, Mark Penn, was the other half of the Dick Morris team that recast populist Bill Clinton as the master of triangulation. I am not trying to play the class card here by claiming that because Obama grew up black and middle-class he will therefore inevitably be that rare politician who remembers where he or she came from. Bill Clinton, who came from a poor family, disproved the notion about remembering. To his everlasting shame as president, Clinton supported and signed welfare legislation that shredded the federal safety net for the poor from which he personally had benefited. He faithfully served big corporate interests by signing off on Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the Financial Services Modernization Act, which, as a gift to the banks, insurance companies and stockbrokers, reversed consumer protection legislation from the New Deal era. Thanks to Bill Clinton, those pirates were allowed to merge into the largest conglomerates the world has ever witnessed and, adding insult to injury, to “data-mine,” thus sharing your most intimate financial and health information. Bill Clinton’s next biggest concession to the fat cats was the Telecommunications Act, which ended what was left of public control of the airwaves and permits mega-media corporations to grow even bigger. No wonder Rupert Murdock and Hillary Clinton now get on so famously. Yes, Bill Clinton was a very good president compared to what came immediately before and after, and his wife has many strong points in her favor, not the least of which is her wonkish intelligence. What I object to is the notion that the perspective of gender or race trumps that of economic class in considering the traumas of this nation. That is because the George W. Bush administration engaged in class warfare for the rich with a vengeance that has left many Americans hurting, and we desperately need change to reverse that destructive course. John Edwards deserves credit for putting this issue of the growing division of American society front and center, and certainly Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich has related his politics to growing up in abysmal poverty. As Kucinich has pointed out, a permanent war economy in which more than half of federal discretionary funds go to the military leaves no room for needed social programs. Question the honesty of any candidate who continues to vote for war funding while talking up all the wonderful domestic programs he or she claims to favor. At least Ron Paul is consistent in saying he would cut both. Obviously, coming from an impoverished background does not ensure a social conscience, and there is no better example that the contrary can be true than Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the scion of a wealthy family, who, as president, was a god in my Bronx home for expanding federal poverty programs that put food on our table when both my parents were out of work. Yes, it is important for the health of our democracy to break barriers that have held back a majority of our citizens, and for that reason it would certainly be an advance to have a black or female president. But that alone is not enough to justify a vote. What we need far more than a change in appearance is one of perspective. Otherwise, Condoleezza Rice would make the ideal candidate. Robert Scheer is editor of Truthdig.com and a regular columnist for The San Francisco Chronicle. © 2008 TruthDig.com

France is healthcare leader, US comes dead last: study

Tue Jan 8, 4:45 PM ET

France is tops, and the United States dead last, in providing timely and effective healthcare to its citizens, according to a survey Tuesday of preventable deaths in 19 industrialized countries.

The study by the Commonwealth Fund and published in the January/February issue of the journal Health Affairs measured developed countries' effectiveness at providing timely and effective healthcare.

The study, entitled "Measuring the Health of Nations: Updating an Earlier Analysis," was written by researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It looked at death rates in subjects younger than 75 that could have been prevented by timely and effective medical care.

The researchers found that while most countries surveyed saw preventable deaths decline by an average of 16 percent, the United States saw only a four percent dip.

The non-profit Commonwealth Fund, which financed the study, expressed alarm at the findings.

"It is startling to see the US falling even farther behind on this crucial indicator of health system performance," said Commonwealth Fund Senior Vice President Cathy Schoen, who noted that "other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less."

The 19 countries, in order of best to worst, were: France, Japan, Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Some countries showed dramatic improvement in the periods studied -- 1997 and 1998 and again between 2002 and 2003 -- outpacing the United States, which showed only slight improvement.

White the United States ranked 15th of 19 between 1997-98, by 2002-03 it had fallen to last place.

"It is notable that all countries have improved substantially except the US," said Ellen Nolte, lead author of the study.

Had the United States performed as well as any of the top three industrialized countries, there would have been 101,000 fewer deaths per year, the researchers said.

A Surge of More Lies

A Surge of More Lies
by Congressman Robert Wexler

A new troubling myth has taken hold in Washington and it is critical that the record is set straight. According to the mainstream media, Republicans, and unfortunately even some Democrats, the President's surge in Iraq has been a resounding success. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

This assertion is disingenuous, factually incorrect, and negatively impacts America's national security. The Surge had a clear and defined objective - to create stability and security - enabling the Iraqi government to enact lasting political solutions and foster genuine reconciliation and cooperation between Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds.

This has not happened.

There has been negligible political progress in Iraq, and we are no closer to solving the complex problems - including a power sharing government, oil revenue agreement and new constitution - than we were before the Administration upped the ante and sent 30,000 more troops to Iraq.

Too many Democrats in Congress are again surrendering to General Petraeus and have failed to challenge the Bush Administration's claims that the surge has been successful. In fact -- it is just the opposite.

The reduction in violence in Iraq has exposed the continuing failure of Iraqi officials to solve their substantial political rifts. By President Bush's own stated goal of political progress, the Surge has failed.

Of course raising troop levels has increased security - a strategy the Bush administration ignored when presented by General Shinseki before the war in Iraq began - but the fundamental internal Iraqi problems remain and the factors that were accelerating the civil war in 2007 have simply been put on hold.

The military progress is a testament to the patience and dedication of our brave troops - even in the face of 15 month-long deployments followed by insufficient Veteran's health services when they return home. They have performed brilliantly - despite the insult of having President Bush recently veto a military spending bill that enhanced funding and benefits, and increased care.

Despite the efforts of American soldiers, the surge alone cannot bring about the political solutions needed to end centuries of sectarian divide.

As it stands, little on the ground supports the assertion that Iraqis are ready to stand up and govern themselves. Too few Iraqi troops are trained, equipped and combat ready, and they cannot yet provide adequate security. Loyalty is also an issue in the Iraqi army as Al Queda and Sunni insurgents infliltrate their defense forces. The consequences turned deadly just recently when an Iraqi soldier purposely killed two U.S. troops.

On the streets of Baghdad and Mosul, the Sunni and Shia factions have paused their fighting, awaiting guarantees and protections that have not yet been delivered. As Iraqi refugees return, there is no mechanism to help them rebuild their lives, nor recover their now-occupied homes. Neighborhoods once mixed are now segregated.

In Northern Iraq, Kurdish terrorists conducting nefarious operations across the border into Turkey have compelled our NATO ally to strike at bases, inflaming tensions between Baghdad and Ankara.

The surge is working? We suffered more U.S. casualties in 2007 than in any other year of the war. We can't afford any more of this type of success.

How can we create the situation that is most likely to deliver political progress in Iraq? Not by continuing the surge and occupation. Our best chance (there is no guarantee) is by putting real pressure on the Iraqi government to force action. Telling the national and local Iraqi leaders that we are withdrawing our troops can help accomplish this goal. Today, the majority Iraqi Shia government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has little incentive to act when American troops remain in the country to provide security and stability.

Based on the Administration's plan, John McCain's proposal of a 100-year US occupation could be a reality!

The Democratic Congress must act aggressively to first cut off funding for the surge and then the entire war. Many of my colleagues avoided a showdown with the administration because they mistakenly believed such a fight would endanger the safety of the troops.

In fact, we must accept that every soldier killed or injured in the coming months should have already been home. Every billion dollars of war-appropriations we spend from here on should have been spent on genuine priorities here at home such as children's heath care.

Enough is enough: While the Administration over-commits American forces in Iraq, we see Al Qaeda-regrouping and Osama Bin Laden still at large. We remain seriously bogged down in Afghanistan, and are witnessing a crisis in Pakistan that has left a nuclear country on the brink of a meltdown. America's resources and attention are desperately needed elsewhere and our soldiers must no longer be needlessly sacrificed as we wait for Iraqis to stand up.

The Surge has failed. If my colleagues gullibly accept the moving rationale for the Surge, just as so many have for the war itself, we will have failed as well.


***To contact me or for more information, go to www.wexlerforcongress.com .

Paid for by "Wexler for Congress"

Chuck Norris Approved

Tonight we find out who wins New Hampshire's primary, the first in the nation. In case you haven't seen it... Funny.

Serious? No. At least I hope not.

The man who won the caucus, quotes from this famous website:
www.chucknorrisfacts.com

I think it is why he won...

Rock the Vote's Youth Vote Review

Rock the Vote has a new PDF that reviews the young voter myths and facts.

Check it out.

Here is a sample from their press release:

Myth - Every election year, reporters and organizations hype the youth vote as the next big thing, but come Election Day, young voters fail to materialize at the polls.

Fact - It’s true that there was a lot of talk about young voters in both 2004 and 2006 – but for very good reason. After a nearly continuous downward turnout trend since 1972, turnout among 18-29 year olds was up significantly in 2004 and 2006.

In 2004, 20.1 million 18-29 year olds voted, a 4.3 million jump over 2000. The turnout increase (9% points) among the youngest voters was more than double that of the overall electorate (4% points). (U.S. Census Bureau)
In 2006, the youth increased by 1.9 million over 2002 levels. Turnout among the youngest voters grew by 3% points over 2002, twice the turnout increase (1.7% points) of older voters. (U.S. Census Bureau)

In fact, in 2004 the turnout rate of 18-29 year olds was higher than all but one year (1992) since 18-20 year olds got voting rights in 1972.

Post Caucus Wrap Up

Wow, I don't even know where to go from here... Obama won the Iowa Caucus, and Edwards came in second, and Clinton came in 3rd. I didn't think that Iowa would go that way, although it broke down pretty much like the last poll said it should.

From Wiretap's article on the primary:

The Iowa youth turnout rate has almost tripled since 2000. Participation of youth under 30 rose from 3 percent in 2000 to 11 percent in 2008. The turnout rate for those 30 and above was 15 percent. Among 17- to 29-year-old Democrats, 57 percent supported the winner, Barack Obama, and among 17- to 29-year-old Republicans, 40 percent supported the winner, Mike Huckabee, according to CNN's entrance poll.

Wiretap also notes that Obama's Campaign gives the youth vote credit for his win.

YDA's Executive Director Al Acker said in the YDA Press Release:

“The Young Voter Revolution continued in Iowa tonight, with young voters again showing they will turn out when targeted,” said Alexandra Acker, Executive Director of the Young Democrats of America. “Young voters were the margin of victory for Barack Obama tonight and they will by the margin of victory to propel our Democratic nominee to victory in November.

Michael Moore's comments point out that support for the war was rejected.

Over 70% of Iowan Democrats voted for candidates who either never voted for the invasion of Iraq (Obama, Richardson, Kucinich) or who have since admitted their mistake (Edwards, Biden, Dodd). I can't tell you how bad I feel for Senator Clinton tonight. I don't believe she was ever really for this war. But she did -- and continued to do -- what she thought was the politically expedient thing to eventually get elected. And she was wrong. And tonight she must go to sleep wondering what would have happened if she had voted her conscience instead of her calculator.

Future Majority Reporting that the youth vote was over three times what it was over the last few cycles.

Young voters are increasingly moving in the direction of Democrats, and tonight, the Obama campaign - thanks to a savvy youth operation that reached out on Facebook and MySpace, at high schools and on college campuses - was able to capitalize on that to attain victory. His win confirms what many have been saying for years now: young people will vote if you pay attention to the, speak to their issues, and reach out. New technologies can certainly help make that initial connection, yet it's still good old fashioned face to face politicking - peer to peer organizing - that makes the difference. Years ago, when young people began voting Republican during the Reagan Era, Democrats stopped asking young voters to participate. Tonight's victory shows what individual candidates, and the Democratic Party stand to gain by courting today's young voters.

And each campaign has released comments. I can't wait to see how things go in NH.

A Dynasty Isn’t a Democracy

A Dynasty Isn’t a Democracy
Another Bhutto for Pakistan doesn’t bode well for democracy; would another Clinton for the U.S.?
by Rosa Brooks

As the U.S. election season shifts creakily into higher gear, our leaders are enthusiastically lionizing slain Pakistani politician Benazir Bhutto. The former prime minister “returned to Pakistan to fight for democracy,” noted Hillary Clinton. “The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a tragic event … for democracy,” mourned Rudy Giuliani. Meanwhile, President Bush urged Pakistanis “to honor Benazir Bhutto’s memory by continuing with the democratic process for which she so bravely gave her life.”

Hold on! Bhutto was a courageous and compelling figure, but hardly a martyr to democracy. The daughter of a prime minister, Bhutto took over the leadership of the Pakistan People’s Party from her mother, who herself inherited party leadership from Bhutto’s father. Bhutto’s own two terms as Pakistan’s prime minister were marred by corruption scandals and allegations of involvement in still darker activities, including the 1996 murder of her own brother, a party rival.

Her policies didn’t always further democracy either. Bhutto actively supported the Taliban’s military takeover of Afghanistan, for instance. She was willing to help empower the most extremist and repressive Islamic organization the world has so far seen in exchange for the imagined strategic advantage an entrenched Taliban government in Afghanistan would give Pakistan in its unending power struggle with India.

After disgrace and exile, Bhutto returned to Pakistan in the fall of 2007 on a self-styled mission to rescue Pakistan from chaos, and she loudly demanded the restoration of democracy. Pakistan could use some genuine democracy — but Bhutto, an eternally polarizing figure, was hardly the woman to usher in a new era of democratic stability, regardless of the Bush administration’s hopes.

Bhutto’s tragic death itself underlines the limits of her commitment to democracy. In her will, she named her 19-year-old son, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, as her successor as chair of the Pakistan People’s Party, appointing her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, as co-chair and quasi-regent until Bilawal comes of age. To Bhutto, political power was something one could inherit, something to be passed along from spouse to spouse and from parent to child, like grandmother’s pearls or grandfather’s favorite chair — or like the infamous Swiss bank accounts that led to corruption charges against her in several countries.

And who knows? Maybe Bilawal’s not such a bad choice for the Pakistan People’s Party. A history student at Oxford, he already has a constituency — at least on Facebook, where someone has established a new fan group called “Let’s not assassinate Bilawal Bhutto because he’s hot, OK?” Bilawal’s own Facebook profile is fairly modest: “I am not a politician or a great thinker. I’m merely a student. I do the things that students do like make mistakes, eat junk food … but most importantly of all … learn.” Still, “My time to lead will come.”

What’s weirdest about all this is that not very many people here in the U.S. seem to have noticed that this is all pretty weird. A champion of democracy passes along political leadership in her will, leaving it to her husband and son? That’s dynastic politics, not democratic politics.

Kings and queens pass along their political positions to their children. Paragons of democracy do not. But you won’t find even a hint of this in the reactions of the leading presidential contenders from either party, or from the White House, or from most leading U.S. media commentators.

There is, of course, an obvious and depressing explanation for why so few people in the U.S. seem to have registered this as jarring: We’re perilously close to becoming a dynastic state ourselves. Our current president, George W. Bush, is the son of our former president, George H.W. Bush. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is struggling today to hold on to her position as Democratic Party front-runner, is married to former President Clinton.

You can’t blame the heirs of political dynasties for their fortunes. Nineteen-year-old Bilawal is a pawn in a deadly game; so far, he hasn’t had much control over his life. Benazir Bhutto didn’t have much either: In September, she wrote, rather poignantly, “I didn’t choose this life. It chose me.” Similarly, George W. Bush didn’t choose his father, and it’s not Hillary Clinton’s fault that the young law professor she married later became president.

All the same, there’s something awfully creepy about the dynastic trend in American politics. If Hillary Clinton is elected president in 2008, by 2012 the U.S. presidency will have been controlled for 24 years by only two families. More families have divvied up the political spoils in Pakistan in the last 24 years.

The U.S. isn’t Pakistan, thank goodness. But as voters in Iowa’s caucuses kick off the 2008 presidential season, we’d do well to think about what makes the U.S. and Pakistan different — and about what values we Americans need to nurture if we’re going to remain a true democracy and not sink into our own brand of corrupt dynastic politics.

rbrooks@latimescolumnists.com

Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times

Center for American Progress Thoughts on Pakistan

Link

The article is good and full of links and documentation, but here is the conclusion:

A PAKISTAN POLICY NEEDED: In 1999, Bush could not name Pervez Musharraf as the leader of Pakistan, but still managed to claim that Musharraf was "committed to reinstating democratically elected government." In eight years, Bush has learned Musharraf's name but hasn't progressed much beyond his original talking point. Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Brian Katulis -- who recently returned from a visit to Pakistan -- writes the Bush administration has unwisely hitched its "plans to singular personalities rather than developing the institutions to advance U.S. interests." "We need a Pakistani policy, a consistent policy toward the government and the people of Pakistan, not a policy that holds all our hopes on one man, Musharraf," said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE). Katulis writes that the first step in recalibrating U.S. policy is to begin "building a system based on rule of law and democracy that is capable of bringing terrorists to justice and ensuring that the judiciary is independent." Biden has argued that America should increase its non-military financial aid to Pakistan, taking an approach centered on the well-being of the Pakistani people. "Instead of funding military hardware, it would build schools, clinics, and roads," he said

2008 is gonna be great!

Two Days till the Caucuses in Iowa! So Thursday is going to be the first opinion poll that really matters!

Other than that... Happy New Year everybody! Enjoy the video on low expectations in the new year, and realize that this isn't the year for low expectations. We are going to work hard, and we are going to make the world a better place!