New York City Democrat

Letter to Joseph Andrew

2008-05-01T18:00:00.001-07:00

"While I was hopeful that a long, contested primary season would invigorate our Party, the polls show that the tone and temperature of the race is now hurting us."

I am sorry Mr. Andrew, but polls aren't showing that the tone and temperature of the race is hurting us, it is showing that it is hurting Senator Obama. Senator Clinton is now polling higher against Senator McCain and Senator Obama. The latest Quinnipiac polls show that Senator Clinton outperforms Senator Obama in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.

"We need a candidate who will re-invigorate the economy and keep good jobs here in America."

Going along with the "polls," these same polls show that Hillary Clinton is trusted more on the Economy than Barack Obama.

"We need a candidate who will provide health coverage for our 45 million uninsured neighbors."

This is absolutely true. Obama's health plan leaves out 15 million people. That is a third of our uninsured neighbors.

"If the campaign's surrogates called Governor Bill Richardson, a respected former member of President Clinton's cabinet, a "Judas" for endorsing Senator Obama, we can all imagine how they will treat somebody like me."

This is a big jump. First, it was James Carville who called Bill Richardson Judas. While he is a Clinton supporter, he does not speak for Hillary Clinton. Secondly, to automatically assume you hold so much praise and standing in the party is quite arrogant if I may say so myself. To be honest, I am sure most of the 30 million voters who have voted so far would not even recognize your name unless they picked up a paper in the last few days and have been watching cable news non-stop, and in a month, they will forget your name. Bill Richardson on the other hand, ran for POTUS, and quite frankly, many more people know him than know you. Lastly, no one in the Clinton campaign has called you a name.

"When they use the same attacks made on me when I was defending them, they prove the callow hypocrisy of the old politics first perfected by Republicans. I am an expert on this because these were the exact tools that I mastered as a campaign volunteer, a campaign manager, a State Party Chair and the National Chair of our Party."

I really hope you will retract this statement. Suggesting it is doing no more but using the same type of "callow hypocri[tical] of the old politics" that you now say you reject.

"My stomach churns when I think how my old friends in the Clinton campaign will just pick up the old silly Republican play book and call in the same old artificial attacks and bombardments we have all heard before."

I dont know, but maybe you have not been paying attention. It is the Obama campaign that has used Republican memes throughout this campaign. Saying "she will say anything and do anything to win" - Right wing play book. "She is untrustworthy" - Right wing play book. "D-Punjab" using xenophobia... right wing play book. Lumping Bill Clinton's presidency with George H.W. and George W. with the "problems we've faced for the last 20 years" is not only throwing the only 2 term democratic president since FDR under the bus, but misleading, disingenuous and, quite frankly, insulting.

"People flock to Senator Obama because they are rejecting the hyperbole of the old politics."

The difference between the candidates votes have been less than 1%. How do you suggest that Obama has brought in tons of people because of his campaign yet ignore the millions that have voted for Hillary?

I do not fault you for switching your support, but if you switched for a more coherent reason, instead of self contradicting reasons (see your polling data) I would take it more into consideration, but quite frankly, it just seems like you, yourself are playing politics.

Jose Sepulveda
Part of the forgotten class of young, male, progressive, latte drinking, wine sipping, environmentally conscious voters for Hillary Clinton.

what could you buy with 611 BILLION dollars

2007-11-07T17:45:00.000-08:00

Click here to see what it could pay for.

Hillary Clinton: Driver's License Exchange

2007-10-31T20:39:00.001-07:00

OK so lets clear some things up about what REALLY happened at the debate, and expose some Dodd/Edwards/Obama memes that are taken for truth, but are actually quite wrong when you look at what actually happened.

First Russert Asked: "Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants... Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license? "

At no point in the response does Hillary say that 1. Illegal Immigrants should get drivers' licenses. 2. That she agrees with Spitzer's plan.

What she does do is explain the position Gov. Spitzer is in right now in New York.

Here is her answer:

"Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. [Failures of immigration reform on REPUBLICANS] We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It's probability. [This is a lot of nothing]

So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum. [Vacuum caused by the federal government] I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap. There needs to be federal action on immigration reform.[Again, we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform is referring to the federal government]"

AT NO POINT DID HILLARY SAY SHE WAS FOR THE PLAN. If you can spot it in there, then please show me where she says "I support giving Illegal Immigrants driver's licenses."

OK - Now lets move on

RUSSERT THEN ASKS A DIFFERENT QUESTION

QUESTION 2

"Does anyone here believe an illegal immigrant should not have a driver's license?"

Dodd doesn't think so, and gives his answer.

Dodd: "This is a privilege. And, look, I'm as forthright and progressive on immigration policy as anyone here. But we're dealing with a serious problem here, we need to have people come forward. The idea that we're going to extend this privilege here of a driver's license I think is troublesome, and I think the American people are reacting to it.

We need to deal with security on our borders. We need to deal with the attraction that draws people here. We need to deal fairly with those who are here."

OK - this is a DIFFERENT QUESTION AGAIN. In here, Dodd disagrees with giving Illegals a drivers license. He, at no point discusses the same points Hillary discussed. He doesnt discuss comprehensive immigration reform, or the strain the lack of action on behalf of the Federal Government has on State and Local governments.

OK at this point Hillary states:

HRC - "Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do... And we have failed. We have failed.

She clarifies that she didnt say she agrees with the plan. IF YOU READ WHAT SHE DID SAY, you will see that she is right, at no point did she endorse the plan.

Dodd flips out - maybe because he wasnt paying attention to what she actually answered.

Dodd: "No, no, no. You said -- you said yes..."

She did?????????????????????????????? Again, where did she say yes????????????????? Did i miss it???????????????

Dodd again:

"you thought it made sense to do it." Umm thats different than what was said as well, what she said is that she understands the hard position Spitzer is in, and understands that Governors are trying to pick up the slack of the Federal Government.

Russert, smelling a fight, has to chime in again, and now asks a DIFFERENT QUESTION. Its not the same question he asked the first time, and its not the same question he asked Dodd.

Russert: "Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure of what I heard. Do you, the New York senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license?

Now this is Clinton answering AGAIN:

"You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays "gotcha." It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problems. We have failed. And George Bush has failed. Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York, we want to know who's in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows.

He's making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform."

Again, she makes the SAME arguments as in her first answer. The administration failed in fixing the problem, congress failed in passing immigration reform, and we (meaning the congresspeople on stage) should have passed immigration reform. She also states AGAIN that Spitzer is in a horrible situation because of federal inaction.

OK, so it seems like people will move on, but Edwards, of course, who probably also wasnt paying attention until Dodd flipped out, has to chime in as well.

Edwards:

"I want to add something that Chris Dodd just said a minute ago, because I don't want it to go unnoticed. Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes just a few minutes ago."

Actually Edwards, you have it wrong. She didnt say anything different. You just are playing fast and loose with the facts.

So, now that people can actually read what was said, Dodd should apologize for losing his temper because he made a mistake. And Edwards should apologize as well.

I wont get into what Obama said, because I think he came in so late in this situation, it fell on deaf ears.

Hillary Live: A Conversation with Hillary Clinton

2007-09-20T18:27:00.001-07:00

Last night, Hillary Clinton was in NYC for the event "Hillary Live" at The Town Hall in NYC. The event was moderated by Tom Vilsack and had a special guest, Gen. Wes Clark who was in NYC for his new book. The crowd was mixed - there were many Asian Americans, Latin Americans, African Americans - a pretty even (60f/40m ???) gender difference, lots of college students, gay men, and the age range was pretty healthy as well. In attendance was former Mayor Dinkins, as well as a few other state officials (roughly 10?). Well.. moving on...

Tom Vilsack opened up the night, speaking for about 15 minutes, and told two stories about people from Iowa, he was a good speaker, but didnt really do much for me. He was all right, but people just wanted him to finish so that HRC can come on. He then introduced Sen. Clinton to loud applause that took a while to settle down, Hillary actually had to wave people down to begin speaking.

Hillary spoke for about 25 minutes and then introduced Gen. Clark (With some people yelling Clinton/Clark and/or VP Clark). Gen. Clark then addressed the audience stating tht Hillary is by far the most qualified person to lead in the race. He called her smart and brilliant, pointed out that she has been to Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. He said she will be the best President America has ever had, lastly he said "she has paid her dues" (a military slogan suggesting someone has worked hard for their position).

She outlined her four main goals as President, and some of these points were also spoken about in the question and answer session:

1. Leadership in the World: In this section, she spoke about a lot of the problems in the world right now, every thing from the increase in antagonistic governments in South America; problems in the middle east (Iraq, Iran/Israel/Syria tension); problems in Africa (Sudan/Chad); and Russia moving away from Democracy. At the end of talking about all of these problems, she bashed the Bush administration. She then went on to say the day after the election, before she is inaugurated, she will send both highly respected republicans and democrats around the world to declare the end of "Cowboy Diplomacy" to great applause.

She spoke in depth about Darfur, and the fact that the US is no longer leading in the world on humanitarian issues, unlike during Bill's Presidency during the Kosovo campaign. She said the US and NATO should have enforced a no fly zone in Darfur two years ago, as well as going into detail why. She also said the UN backed AU troops do not have enough air support, logistical support, and its basically a losing mission unless something gets done. She complained that the UN is moving too slowly. The failure to do so, will only cause more problems. Lastly, she said this is a position in which the US can get tough on China, and that China has to stop enabling the disaster.

On Iraq, she stated that the US military has done everything asked of them: Getting rid of Saddam Hussein, get elections to occur, and allow a government to be formed, and they must now stop policing a civil war and move out of combat rolls. She went into the ins and outs of how Congress works (which i wont do here). She spoke about the Webb Amendment that didnt pass because of the dire need for 60 votes, and the Republicans want to stay the course. She pointed out the hypocrisy of Bush's statements saying that they are withdrawing 30K troops, because they were going to be withdrawn anyway. She also said (which you might have caught on CNN) that every time there is Republican angst, Cheney comes down in his motorcade, and out comes "Darth Vader" to which the entire place shook with laughter and clapping. (Her humor was spot on and worked well). She again expressed the need for either Republicans to vote with Democrats on the issue, or to vote them out (at which point she mentioned Udall, Shaheen, and Warner as people who would be great additions to the Senate).

2: The second major topic was Healthcare. She spoke about her recent health care plan which came out on Monday. She said she didnt specifically pick a Single Payer plan because it probably will not be possible to pass. People like Choices, and her plan gives plenty of choices. People can keep their plan (which she also said was not stressed in 93/94... people thought the Government was taking over medicine, and people dont like that idea. Americans especially always want multiple choices for everything, and also want choices for insurance). She spoke about opening up Congressional plans. She said when she brought that up in 1993, a lot of people in Congress spoke out against it, and now that she is actually in Congress, she doesnt understand why Americans, who pay for Congressional healthcare cannot get the same options. She spoke about not being denied due to pre-existing conditions, and spoke about a public plan like medicare that will also be an option. She was very clear that if you like your insurance, you can keep it, and it will not change if you do not want it to. She also said that was a lesson learned in 93. If people feel like the Government is interfering in their insurance, then they will turn against it, but if they know that it wont affect them, then they will not be antagonistic against it, and it will help in the long run to cover the 47 million uninsured Americans. Lastly, she said Congressmembers pay on average 3K less than the average American, and many Americans will most likely want to save that 3K. Then there is the public plan option which might be attractive to many Americans as well. (I think I touched on most of her points on UHC).

3. Energy - She spoke about Global warming and how important an issue it is. (Here she also knocked Bush and had a little joke saying "wouldnt it be great to have a president who isnt afraid to say global warming" too loud applause). She also included it on the list of one of the biggest threats to America along with Global terrorism and WMD proliferation. She said we have to learn from other countries (the Dutch on Wind, Brazil on biofuels etc.) as well as Americans making an effort at becoming more energy efficient (Talks about California using 50% less per capita than the rest of Americans).

There wasnt a follow up question on Energy so she only had a chance to talk about it during her opening speech.

4. Children -

Here she spoke about her time in the Childrens Defense Fund, SCHIP, and the Healthy Schools Act. She spoke about the need for Universal Pre-K and the failures of NCLB (and how she doesnt want our children to turn into walking standardized tests) to great applause. She spoke about how she doesnt want to be a part of the first generation that sets children in America back instead of moving forward. There should be no reason why America is the most productive country in the world, and yet, every 29 seconds someone drops out of high school. She said that even though education is mostly State/Locally funded, the Federal Government should make it easier and areas that are poorer should get more federal funding. She covered many aspects about different issues facing children, including getting access to vaccinations and other accomplishments.

Both Wes Clark and Hillary Clinton spoke about the current administration blurring the lines between civilian leadership and military roles. They both said Gen. Petraeus was an extraordinary leader but who has an unachievable goals. Political progress has not taken hold in Iraq because there is no military solution. They said that President Bush has confined Petraeus' mission into set parameters, and he can only move within those parameters. General Clark said that Bill never hid behind a general, and neither will Hillary. Hillary also said she is not intereseted in Yes men/women.

Overall, the night was pretty amazing. At one point Hillary stated that "Bill is a force of Nature" and she conceded that she isnt like him, they campaign differently, but the crowd didnt have any of it, as exemplified by a gentleman yelling "SO ARE YOU!" to yet more applause and laughter. Hillary was interrupted with applause many times and General Clark was a pleasant surprise to the mix. All that for $25 - I say sign me up next time as well.

P.S. My roll of film didnt work out (I forgot my digital camera) but i have some videos from my phone, will try to get those up ASAP.

Bill Clinton- An asset to Hillary

2007-09-14T19:07:00.000-07:00

Well, my apologies for not updating this in such a long time. Today, I am going to talk about Bill Clinton, and why Americans and people all over the world love him. He's gifted beyond belief with political skill. He is a tremendously charismatic figure. He is an accomplished author and his most recent book is already a top seller. A project by Bill Clinton, the Clinton Global Initiative, has brought medicine and tremendous amounts of antiretroviral drug therapy to hundreds of thousands of people with HIV around the world. He was also put in charge of the Indonesian Tsunami relief project for two years by the UN. He still keeps busy, and is leading the fight against childhood obesity in the US. (Plus he's great friends with Nelson Mandela!).

Bill Clinton is probably the most captivating public speaker. Here are some clips of Bill speaking at Harvard Commencement. It is in 3 parts, just watch them one after another. Its about a half hour long, but once he starts, you wont want to stop.

Bush currently is sitting at an approval rating of about 33%. When Bill Clinton left office in 2001, he was sitting on a whopping 66% approval rating.

Here's Bill Plugging for Hillary: This is when he was not taking small steps in her campaign.

Theres also the media blitz that follows Bill: In the last two weeks, he was on Letterman, Larry King, Oprah, and on the campaign trail.

So why am I writing this diary? People say that Bill Clinton will only hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign. They'll bring up the drudge from the scandal. I say, any right wing bullshit will be flattened by this campaign, and lets face it, people have a high favorable opinion about Bill. He's simply an asset to Hillary.

Some thoughts

2007-05-20T09:28:00.000-07:00

As much as I absolutely hate the idea of funding the war without any benchmarks/timeline etc, I think Bush may have won this battle. Pelosi wants a bill to be signed by Memorial Day. She has 1 week to get something done. There arent enough votes to override a veto, there isnt even a majority in either house to cut off funding, and people are getting fed up with Congress.

Congress barely polls above Bush in approval ratings, but thats not saying much as Bush's numbers are in the gutter. The Democrats are in control, but just barely. They cant pass sweeping legislation, and people who voted and are pissed off about the war have to realize that. Furthermore, one Dem is in the hospital, and another supports the war (Lieberman). Hagel is anti war as a republican which means the count is really 50-49. Those are NOT good numbers, so stop thinking everything is going to change. A majority see this as preventing money going to the soldiers. Be careful Pelosi/Reid.

But Congress has done something, but I wouldnt call it an accomplishment, not yet anyway. Thats holding Al Gonzales accountable for what he's done. The longer Bush holds on to Gonzales, the worse off the Republicans are. But he's still the Attorney General, getting him out would be the accomplishment, just a little shy there. Soon enough!

What is the deal with Margaret Spellings? How much did the Secretary of Education know about the kickbacks for colleges from "preferred" loaners? What is she doing to deal with the situation? CUOMO SHOULD NOT HAVE TO DO YOUR WORK MRS. SPELLINGS! Thank god Cuomo is a good AG (for NY state), maybe if Gonzales had half his brains, half his integrity, and half his skill, he wouldnt be in his sad position. Even still, Mrs. Spellings, we need some answers. Do you actually do anything as Secretary of Education? Why are college costs increasing so much? Why is interest on college loans going up? Do you ever tell Bush anything? Do you ever tell him that college students should not have to pay for the Iraq war through increased interest on their loans? Do you tell him NCLB is a failure because he doesnt fund it? Do you sleep at night thinking you are helping American children? Do you tell him he is ignoring students? Do you remind him that Americans are slipping further and further from other countries in science and math? Do you ever say anything about Intelligent Design? And how that will only make our students less prepared in the future?

And of course, everyone's favorite NJ Gov (sarcasm) Christie T. Whitman. What were you smoking when you said the air quality was ok in Downtown Manhattan? Were you FORCED by other administration officials to say so? Were you drunk? What was going on? Dont use this crap answer that you have litigation going on, you should be sued for your inadequate leadership and your willful and wanton negligence, thats exactly what it was, gross negligence. How do you feel? Are your lungs in danger? Are you breathing all right? Are you sick? You might be fine, but hundreds of others are sick because of what you said. Shame on you.

People are sick and tired of the Administration, but that mostly stems from dissatisfaction on Iraq. If people learn about all of these other things, it will get worse and worse for Republicans. Schumer (D-NY) has done a lot in the Senate Judiciary Committee making Gonzales look bad, Specter (R-PA) has to come around and just say he wants Gonzales to resign. Other republicans have done so, but once Specter does it, I think others will follow. He is the Republican ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, he has to step up.

I generally think Specter is an ok Senator, having lived in PA for 4 years, he was actually pretty well liked. He's pro stem cell research because he's really sick which sets him apart from other Repubs. But his term ends in 2010, and then he will be 80 years old. I dont think PA can hold on to Specter for long, and it doesnt seem like the state will be red much longer. PA WAKE UP! GO BLUE AND STAY BLUE!

Wolfowitz OUT

2007-05-17T19:59:00.001-07:00

Wolfowitz has resigned- read here

Up next. Alberto Gonzalez.

A good week -

2007-05-16T17:44:00.000-07:00

Finally, there are solid results coming from Congress -

The Bush administration lackeys are being taken to task by Congress. But first a look at the World Bank:

Paul Wolfowitz is set to resign. No amount of confidence from the Bushies will save him now. The difference between the World Bank and Congress is that they get quicker results for incompetence. Wolfowitz is said to be negotiating a deal to resign. Probably something that will allow the US to pick the next President of the World Bank and some kind of consolation to P.W.

Today, the Senate interviewed the former deputy Attorney General (the one that served under Ashcroft). There were some telling stories about Gonzo when he was White House Counsel and how he tried to muscle the Justice Department into signing off on his flawed torture memo. For more on this, CLICK HERE. Gonzo is up next. He also failed to provide documents that were ordered under a subpoena. I dont think he wants to get into a constitutional battle. This will only make republicans look bad. If he holds out for much longer, fails to testify, fails to give forward the emails that are missing, you might see him get impeached because not all Republicans are as stupid as Bush. They will send him out before he Bush hurts the party even more.

The Secy of Education, Margaret Spellings, also testified - more on that later, as it develops. I bet the Dems have just found the Bushies hand in the cookie jar AGAIN! (Maybe Bush thought since her name was Spellings, she would be competent).

Former EPA director, Christie Whitman does not want to testify in front of Congress. She is the one in charge during September 11th that said the Air quality was ok. Almost 6 years later, there is lung damage in the rescue workers, and she is making millions as a consultant. Hmm.

Casualties of the Bush Administration:
George Tenet
Colin Powell
Wolfowitz (As dep. secy. of defense)
Rumsfeld
(Wolfowitz Pres of World Bank)
John Bolton
*these lists do not include chiefs of staffs that also resigned in the different departments

Next up:
Gonzales
C.T. Whitman
Margaret Spellings

On a Happy Note:
Jerry Falwell, the evangelical christian, who attacked everything, including teletubbies, has died. May he not rest in peace. He was found in his office dead. GOD SMOTE HIS SORRY ASS. A recent message from the afterlife said:

Jerry Falwell is not taking well to the 200 degree weather. He also cant get his fill of oxy down here, because his mouth is too busy sucking on a big fat gay cock. As further punishment, he has to listen to crazier evangelical christians for 3 hours a day.

Wolfowitz v. Gonzales - the battle continues

2007-05-14T18:45:00.000-07:00

More news on the politcal front on the fate of two embattled "Bushies." Today, the Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty decided that he will step down at some point this summer. Kyle Sampson also resigned in March, he was the Chief of Staff for Gonzales. Couple that with Goodling getting criminal immunity - and now, she will probably testify (she pleaded the 5th before).

On to Wolfowitz - A World Bank panel found that he violated his contract. Washington was given the chance, if he stepped down, to appoint the next president, but Bush had confidence. Now, it seems like his job will be voted on at some point next week.

I think Wolfowitz will be voted off the island first. But Gonzales wont be far behind!

Edwards Flip Flops.... again

2007-05-11T07:09:00.000-07:00

Edwards is one of the least consistent candidates. I last Sunday on "This Week" he was utterly stumped by George S. on Iraq. Now, Time is posting this article:

Asked in Red Oak how she would disengage from Iraq, she gave a precise, nuanced and up-to-the-minute answer: Withdraw the troops from the areas of sectarian conflict like Baghdad, keep a small force fighting al-Qaeda in al-Anbar province, move some troops to the Turkish border, protect the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and other civilian facilities, maintain a special-operations capability. And then, instead of the usual lip service to training Iraqi forces, she said, "We may also leave some forces to help train the Iraqis if there seems a chance this Iraqi government will get any better. But I'm doubtful about that." Contrast that with, say, John Edwards, who seemed utterly lost when I asked him a similar question a few weeks ago, finally settling on the opposite of Clinton's position. "You'd probably have to leave combat troops in the areas where combat was the greatest," he said.

WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT MEAN JOHN- Where do you stand? Remove them all? Leave some in? Are you "flip-flopping" because someone has a clearer answers than you do?

Obama v. Clinton

2007-05-10T11:58:00.000-07:00

There have been countless news articles about the 2008 race for the President. A majority of articles on the democratic candidates focus on the front runners, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. John Edwards, who was probably considered a third front runner, is slipping in national polls as a second tier candidate. (See Newest and Latest Polls). There is a lot of hype and grass roots efforts for the candidates.

Obama has one of the largest grassroots efforts that rivals the Deaniacs of the 04 race. But there have been a lot of problems with that in recent weeks. Most notably was the Obama Fiasco that stifled a 160,000 member grassroots campaign on Myspace spearheaded by Joe Anthony. The site is now down, and Obama's official myspace page has about 100k less than the Joe Anthony page. Hillary Clinton's official myspace page now holds the title as the reigning Myspace contenter by 5000 members.

This might be due to the top heavy campaign managers for Barack Obama. There is a lot of discontent among grassroots supporters of Obama because of the top heavy campaign. On his official campaign website, there was a lot of infighting. The actual blog titled "Our Myspace Experiment" has generated the most responses (Over 490) more than double of any other the blogs on the page. There are a lot of comments equating other supporters to the Bushies. There are a lot of comments saying "get out we dont need you." Futhermore, there is a lot of people questioning the grassroots-ness of his campaign.

A lot of people are pitting Obama as the "Anti-Hillary" candidate. But is he really anti Hillary? The closest Obama has come to being anti Hillary is his repetitive statements that he was "against the war from the start." If he was, why is his voting record the same as Hillary's while in the Senate? Obama hoped to override the presidents veto, saying "we only need 16 votes." That is true, you need 16 votes in the Senate, and a hell of a lot more in the House. To override a veto, you need 2/3s from both houses. Furthermore, Obama has nothing to show that he made a difference. He didnt bring anyone else over to line to vote with the Democrats. Second, he said he was willing to support Hillary's deauthorization of the war. Third, he has called for a phased redeployment of the soldiers from Iraq. The same thing Hillary has repeatedly stated for over 2 years. Furthermore, Hillary supported Senator Byrd's Iraq war resolution that would authorize the war for 1 year back in 2003. Obama was not in the senate at the time.

Senate Roles -
Sen Obama has been in the Senate for two years and a half years, that means he doesnt have as much pull as other senators. He is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, committee on Veterans Affairs, the committee on Health, Education, and Labor, and the committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Sen Clinton is has been in the Senate for 6 and a half years and is on the Senate Armed Services Committee, committee on Health Education and Labor, Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Senate Committee on Aging.

So lets look at these.

Hillary is not on the Foreign Relations Committee, but has greater experience with other nations because of her role as First Lady. Second, Bill Clinton is one of the most respected individuals in Africa, Europe, Asia and Latin America because of his work on AIDS, the Tsunami Relief, and his 8 years as President. Hillary would appoint Bill Clinton as an Ambassador. This is more influential than 2 and a half years in the Senate.
Obama wants to change the view others have of Americans, but so does everyone else. Everyone wants America to have more Credibility abroad. This is, as Edwards put it, "High Falutin language." Edwards was also quick to point out that some candidates dont have as comprehensive stances on issues as he does. A clear shot at Obama, and less so on Clinton. Edwards has more substantive plans than Clinton does, and Clinton has more substantive plans on issues than Obama does. On foreign relations, Obama would have to develop relationships with a lot of countries, gain their confidence, and then build a relationship. Clinton has the upper hand in this situation.

On Veterans Affairs-
Obama is ont he Veterans Affairs committee, but again, does not have a lot to show for it. There has been a lot of talk about helping Veterans, but nothing to back it up. If you are on a committee, do something, make people talk, introduce legislation.
Introduce legislation? Oh like Hillary Clinton did. Hillary has introduced a package of bills that would help veterans like the Heroes at Home Act of 2007 to help fund health care for our military memebers who have had traumatic brain injuries from fighting Bush's war. She also introduced the Restoring Disability Benefits for Injured and Wounded Warriors Act of 2007 and the Protecting Military Family Financial Benefits Act of 2007 both help with disability benefits for soldiers and their families. She also made stops to multiple VA hospitals in Upstate New York. Thats the type of substance we need. Again, have to say Hillary takes the cake on Veterans Affairs.

Senate Armed Services Committee-
Hillary's tenure on the Armed Services committee also gives her a leg up. While Obama is also for Phased redeployment of forces, Hillary is the one that actually introduced legislation to deauthorize the war. Obama introduced legislation to redeploy troops, but the senate and house chose a different bill which he went along with. The bill was vetoed by the president, and Obama in the Debate said he wanted to get enough votes to override the veto, but his efforts did not work. He is putting pressure to pass the war funding bill again. But it gained no traction. If anyone wants to debate this more, go for it, but in reality, there is no substance in Obama's track record.

Health, Education, Labor and Pensions -
Both Senators are on this committee, but what are they doing? I went to Barack Obama's campaign website and found a few things. He introduced the Innovating Teacher Pay act which would reward high-performing teachers with pay increases of 10 to 20 percent of their base salary but no plans to pay for it. At least they werent found on the site. Second Expanding Summer Learning Opportunities - basically making summer school more effective. He also pushed for th Higher Education Opportunity through Pell Grant Expansion, or the HOPE Act to increase pell grants. The third act would increase federal college loans.
The last one is troubling because of the recent news about schools and loaners. An investigation was spearheaded by AG of New York, Andrew Cuomo into lending practices. He uncovered a lot of Universities who cheat students. Andrew Cuomo is going to endorse Hillary Clinton on Monday and served in Clinton's cabinet.

Hillary has continually proposed increasing funds to elementary and secondary school legislation by putting pressure on the Appropriations committee. She has pushed for the School leadership Program which has provided close to $40 million over the past four years to attract dynamic, effective school leaders to high-poverty communities. Clinton also supported the Investing for Tomorrow's Schools Act to help fund charter schools. She co-sponsored legislation that would make January “National Mentoring Month” mentors are a great way to keep people focused and a tremendous source of encouragement. I know a mentor or two, a co-worker in particular who has helped someone in a very low income household and has encouraged others to help out anyway they can as well. She is also an original co-sponsor of the America's Better Classrooms Act, a bill that would provide $2.5 billion in bonding authority to New York State. I am also the proud sponsor of the Investing for Tomorrow's Schools Act. This bill would create innovative funding sources called revolving loan banks in each state. There is also the Healthy, High Performance Schools Act of 2001, legislation that provides grants to help school districts make their buildings healthier and more energy efficient. Lastly there is the the Museum and Library Services Act of 2003, which was signed into law on September 25, 2003. This bill authorized $13.2 million for New York State’s libraries. Hillary is also pusing for legislation that would add $10 billion to a global fund to provide education to millions of children in Africa and elsewhere.
Hillary has been in the senate longer, so has had more time to push legislation through. But it shows she has been an education advocate for a long time.

Homeland Security -
Obama has been an advocate in pushing Homeland Security to do their job. He was a co-sponsor of a bill in March of 2006 for a chemical security bill that required chemical facilities to adopt Inherently Safer Technology (IST). He also wants to keep a tighter hold over nuclear facilities to stop spent nuclear fuel from being unaccounted for. He also introduced and got legislation passed on making sure that in any evacuation, special needs people are included in the planning. He is also for reuniting families after emergencies (this has more to do with situations like Katrina, in fact Hurricane Katrina fueld the special needs and reuniting families legislation). He also introduced legislation to help with radioactive leakage reporting in drinking water.
Clinton has been advocating better control of the boarders. In a recent town hall meeting she stated we needed to know who was coming in and out of the country through the boarders, this includes the northern boarder. She was instrumental in passing the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 as a cosponsor. She also voted to help New York State received close to $300 million in federal homeland security funding as part of the Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations Act. She also introduced into the Senate and helped pass the ntroduced in the Senate the Ensuring Needed Help Arrives Neare Callers Employting 9-1-1 (ENHANCE) Act which was signed into law in December. E-911 technology allows emergency dispatchers to locate the exact geographic location of a call coming from a cell phone. Hillary Clinton and other NY Congressional representatives attacked Michael Chertoff when Homeland Security tried cutting funding for NY. Homeland Security has since then brought the funding back, and the latest bill will add an extra $7 Million to NY. NY is the target for terrorism (1993 bombing, 9/11 attacks).

Hillary has more substance and more to show in legislation and has been a proven fighter for these issues.

On another note, a lot of people keep saying that Obama is very different than Hillary. But who is making up Obama's campagin? In a recent article on bloomberg.com, shows who some of these people are. A lot of them are ex Clinton aides. So does that really make them that different? One of Clinton's senior strategists, Mark Penn has been in the news lately, but the VP of Penn's corporation is running the campaign for Edwards. So much for the anti-Hillary candidates. Obama is using ex-Clinton aides like Tony Lake and Susan Rice, and on economic policy, he has Joe Stiglitz and Jeffrey Liebman (also former Clinton White House staffers). He wants to rise above the "smear" campaigns of the past, but his financial supporters have no problem calling the Clintons liars (Both Bill and Hillary- which is not a good strategy because a majority of people in the country have a favorable opinion of Bill Clinton, and Hillary breaks even in the lastest polls). Obama has been praised by Greg Mankiw, a Harvard professor and former chief White House economist for President George W. Bush. Now Thats a surprising endorsement. One of Obama's economic strategists, Jeffrey Liebman, supported a similar plan for social security thatBush promoted.

Obama surged in the polls with his message of hope, but hope wont win it. Obama needs more substance, and so far, is far behind both Edwards and Clinton. But there is a bigger problem, Obama garners huge support from younger crowds. But this is the same crowd that has historically voted the least, and is almost non existent in primaries. Obama is shaping up to be a bit like Howard Dean in that aspect.

Bill Clinton - Another Reason Why Hillary is my Candidate

2007-05-08T13:04:00.000-07:00

Here's an article that was posted on Reuters.com about President Bill Clinton.
He's such a driving force for Aids in Africa. His "Clinton Global Initiative" is helping millions of people. Furthermore, he is not stopping there, but negotiating to get much needed meds to the millions of people infected with HIV/AIDS in the developing world.

Read the article here: Reuters

Hillary would make Bill Clinton an Ambassador to the World - and Bill is highly respected around the world. Thats the type of action we need to get America back on track.

Newest and Lateset Polls

2007-05-08T08:36:00.000-07:00

OK - so whats happened recently in the polls? Well a week and a half ago i posted about the Rasmussen effect. Basically, Rasmussen was the only poll that had Obama tied with Hillary, and the following week, up by 2%. Over a Six week period, Obama slowly built enough support to surpass Hillary in the Rasmussen poll. It was all over the news. Around that time i posted this polls. It gave a quick review of all the national polls.

Today I'll do it again, and this time, we have polls that were taken after the South Carolina debate.

H= Hillary Clinton
O= Barack Obama
E = John Edwards
A = Al Gore

National Polls:
Cnn/Opinion Research: H 38% O 24% E 12% A 12%
USA Today/Gallup : H 38% O 23% E 12% A 14%
Rasmussen : H 34% O 26% E 16% (A not included in poll)
Quinnipiac : H 32% O 18% E 12% A 14%
Cook/RT Strategies : H 32% O 24% E 15% A 11%

In State Polls - Hillary is leading in S.C., Nev., N.H.,
Edwards is leading in - Iowa
In California - In the latest Survey USA poll, Among Democrats, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton ahead with 48% support to Sen. Barack Obama's 27% and former senator John Edwards' 15%.

My letter to MoveOn.org

2007-05-08T08:30:00.000-07:00

Ref: NY Times Article and a recent email sent by MoveOn.org at 10 AM- EST on 5/8/07

"In the latest email, you directed people to an article in the NYTimes. I dont think that was a good idea from your PR guys. The article says you are making an impact in Iraq, but also says you will decide to become adversarial to the Democratic party if things dont go your way. We all give a lot of criticism about the bushies, and their "my way or highway" stance, but i wasnt expecting it to come from my side either.

Most people dont take the time to read everything you guys send, they usually see a comment about "stop the war by x,y,z" and they will contact their reps through emails, but as soon as you guys decide turning adversarial towards the democratic party, the million plus membership will shrink. I've been a moveon.org member for a long time, and I dont want overzealousness from a now top heavy "grassroots" campaign to get in the way. Take heed."

Political Survivor Update-

2007-05-07T10:33:00.000-07:00

Follow up to Confidence Update
Looks like Wolfowitz is getting axed first!

Reuters has leaked that a close aide to Paul Wolfowitz is going to resign. Also the NY Times reported that a panel is most likely to find that Paul Wolfowitz broke rules as head of the World Bank.

Wolfowitz's time is very limited. Adios!

Confidence update

2007-05-06T13:42:00.000-07:00

I blogged about "confidence" twice: 1st here, 2nd here.

In the Sunday New York Times (May 6th, 2007) there is an interesting article about these guys. The article is comparing who is going down first to the hit CBS show Survivor.

Read the article here: Playing 'Survivor' in Washington

Enjoy!

Obama- Myspace fiasco

2007-05-06T13:37:00.000-07:00

For over two and a half years, www.myspace.com/barackobama was run by an avid fan of the senator, Joe Anthony. As soon as he was elected, Anthony began his quest to build a massive grassroots campaign for the Senator. He reached out to all of his friends, worked up to 5 hours a day reaching out to the younger crowd, bloggers, and those who eventually became Obama's core of donors who contributed less than $100 each to his campaign in the first quarter.

When Obama anounced his campaign, the 40k friends on Anthony's myspace grew to a staggering 160,000. The groundwork for the profile was already laid out, the information was up to date, and Anthony did such a great job that the campaign offered him a job in Chicago for the campaign. Moving across the country for a part time job (because once the campaign is over, the job wont exist) is not on everyone's to do list. Instead, Joe Anthony and the campaign kept in contact. Anthony eventually shared the password for his myspace account with the campaign to help with the massive amount of comments, and messages Sen. Obama no doubt received. The unofficial myspace account made it clear that it was not the campaigns myspace account, and subsequently directed Obama fans to the "official" myspace page.

Then something happened. I dont know exactly, and I cannot tell from reading anyone's account of the events, but something happened. Anthony says he was offered a fee for the myspace account, and Obama's campaign said he locked them out and then gave them an itemized account of what he wanted (eventually turning to 39k which seems like what someone who is offered a job to move across the country would make anyway).

Anyway, things went sour. Obama's campaign told Myspace that they wanted the URL. Myspace then gave the campaign the URL (Joe Anthony's URL). Now the campaign (after people got up in arms over it) said they are giving it back?

So whats the big deal? A lot of people feel that Obama has been speaking about this new message about a new kind of politics. A message that there is strong grass roots support never seen before, but then the campaign takes away someones website. A lot of people feel that the campaign, running on a "new type of image for politicians" is doing what every other politician does; take control when they find something that can be an asset. The problem in this case is that it backfired because it was handled poorly.

I visited both Joe Anthony's myspace blog and the blog on Obama's website; strangly titled " Our Myspace Experiment." Strange, it was Anthony's myspace experiment for over two years before the campaign even started. What is more surprising, and pretty sad, is the "with us or against us" attitude that a lot of people who are signed up and actually write on Obama's blogs. Here are some comments when some members expressed disatisfaction with the situation:

May 2nd 2007 at 8:11 pm EDT: One hint that Obama is just more of the same, and we're outta here like smoke in the wind.

May 2nd 2007 at 8:13 pm EDT : Don't let the door hit ya...

May 2nd 2007 at 8:44 pm EDT: Take a hike. You were never here to begin with. Not gonna miss you. Go bother someone else.

May 2nd 2007 at 10:27 pm EDT: Go on John - we don't need people who cave to pressure and hype. Get a spine or get out. It's too bad people like you and Bill feel so empathetic with a leech (Joe Anthony) who thinks they are entitled to a share of 'seeming' success

May 3rd 2007 at 3:11 pm EDT It seems your attacking both, to be honest. He was being honest, and you people jump at him "fine we don't want you", and then you tell him "to get a spine or get out", somehow equating his character with his unfailing support for a politician.

Well-- after all of that, Obama personally called Joe Anthony (in a way admitting his campaign really screwed this one up, but still siding with his campaign). Joe Anthony is getting his URL back from Myspace, and doesnt know if he will delete it or give it up to a non profit organization...
Either way, Obama's camp looks bad in this situation and even if it was campaign mismanagement by others, its still Obama's management team. He needs to take responsibility. First rule of politics, if you start picking off your own supporters, it makes it a lot easier for others to pick you off.

for more info on the situation see this blog:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/5/3/162736/1827#commenttop

De-Authorization of the War

2007-05-04T18:14:00.001-07:00

Yesterday, Thursday May 3rd, 2007, Sen. Hillary Clinton(D-NY) and Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) introduced legislation in the senate to de-authorize the Iraq war on Oct. 11th, 2007, the five year anniversary of authorization for the Iraq war. The authorization in 2002 was based on claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, now that that claim has been debunked, it only makes sense that the authorization be dismissed.

The New York Times reported:

After Mr. Byrd and Mrs. Clinton announced their plan, Mr. Edwards quickly put out a statement urging Congress to focus on withdrawing troops and not revoking the 2002 authorization.
“Congress should stand its ground and not back down to him,” Mr. Edwards said. “They should send him the same bill he just vetoed, one that supports our troops, ends the war and brings them home.”

Unfortunately for the ex senator, if congress sends another bill it will just meet another veto. Furthermore, exploring new avenues to force a change does not bind Clinton's hands on other efforts in congress. This legislation is another way to tackle the debate, and clearly shows that HRC has the will to find new answers to problems.

Senator Obama has come forward stating he would support the Clinton measure, but Sen. Obama was not at work today, and could not relay his support on the Senate floor. In a press release, he called the legislation the "Byrd measure" intentionally forgetting Sen. Clinton's name as on of the senators who brought forth the legislation.

I personally feel the legislation is brilliant and shows there are more than one way to approach a problem. Sen. Clinton has the ability to see things in a multi-dimensional light.

Sen. Clinton stated: "It is time to sunset the authorization for the war in Iraq. If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him." Right on. Continue fighting for America Sen. Clinton.

Polls and Endorsements - a continuation

2007-05-01T18:40:00.000-07:00

So I recently blogged about both Polls and Endorsements and their impact on the election. This blog is fusing the two :)

Well - so in my "endorsements" section, I wrote about Edwards stronghold on Iowan endorsements (post Vilsack droping out of the race, and Pre Vilsack endorsing Hillary) and Hillary's stronghold in New Hampshire. So what do the Polls say about this?

Well first lets look at Iowa -
In the last 4 polls in Iowa - Edwards has the lead. He is in the lead on average, by 4.8% points. Edwards started his campaigning earlier than the other candidates, but his lead has slowed since the other candidates have started their campaigns. Edwards' lead is slimming every month.
Obama is averaging 4 pts less than Clinton, and 8 pts less than Edwards.

In New Hampshire -
In New Hampshire, where Hillary has the majority of endorsements, Hillary has a strong lead in the polls. On average, Hillary leads with 7-8 percent over Edwards who is second in polls, and leads Obama by 12 percent. Hillary has a strong commanding lead that has only grown since January.

Polls:

2007-04-29T13:20:00.000-07:00

There was a lot of media coverage recently about Obama and Hillary being tied in the polls... but are they really tied?
Rasmussen reported that Obama closed the gap on Hillary with a 32% tie between the two... but what do other polls say?

H- Hillary
O- Obama
E- Edwards

NBC/WSJ --- H 36% O 31% E 20% (Hillary +5.0)
Pew Research- H 34% O 24% E 18% (Hillary +10.0)
Rasmussen -- H 32% O 32% E 17% (Tie)
Fox News -- H 41% O 20% E 12% (Hillary +21.0)
USA Today/Gallop H 31% O 26% E 16% (Hillary 5.0)
ABC News/Wash Post H 37% O 20% E 14% (Hillary +17.0)

Hillary leads in a majority of polls. Rasmussen is the only poll that had the two tied.

The Pew Poll also has Hillary Clinton ahead in specific questions as well:

STRONGEST LEADER: Hillary Clinton leads with 37 percent, Barack Obama 20 percent and John Edwards 12 percent.
BEST EXPERIENCE: Hillary Clinton leads with 39 percent, Barack Obama 5 percent and John Edwards 5 percent.
MOST ELECTABLE: Hillary Clinton leads with 32 percent, Barack Obama 17 percent and John Edwards 16 percent.
WILL MAKE CHANGES AMERICA NEEDS: Hillary Clinton leads with 37 percent, Barack Obama 22 percent and John Edwards 11 percent.

Wheres the Media BLITZ on this?

Reviews are in: Hillary Wins Debate

2007-04-29T12:46:00.000-07:00

Newspaper reports and bloggers were united in their evaluation of the Debate: Overall, Hillary did the best job.

Here are some of the links I could find on the topic:

Grading the Dems: Reidblog
Washington Post Blog: The Democratic Debate: Winners and Losers
CBS News: Steady Clinton Handles a Lively Debate
The New York Times: In Debate, Democrats Show More Unity Than Strife
The Dark Stuff Podcast: Is it safe to say HIllary wont the debate last night
Taylor Marsh: A very good night for Hillary
Outside Report: Responses to SC Debate
Daily KOS: My assessment of the candidates and predictions
Blogher: Debate

MSNBC'S MATTHEWS - HILLARY 'DID VERY WELL... HER PRESENTATION WAS VERY SOLID... VERY IMPRESSIVE': -- "I thought Hillary Clinton did really well tonight. As a frontrunner, I think she held her place. I think her voice, her manner, her presentation was very solid.I thought she held herself as a frontrunner and kept her status.I think that she kept her voice, and she was very controlled, and very professional and very impressive."

MSNBC'S SCARBOROUGH - HILLARY 'SOLID... HER ANSWERS... WERE STRONG.': "Hillary Clinton... Not flashy but solid. Her answers on health care and government competence were strong."

BOB SHRUM - HILLARY WAS 'SUPERB': "Clinton was superb.Winner: Hillary Clinton."

WASHINGTON POST'S CHRIS CILLIZZA - HILLARY 'CRISP AND CONCISE,' 'HELPED HER CAUSE BY FLASHING HER EXPERIENCE AND THE BREADTH OF HER KNOWLEDGE': "[I]n Clinton's case, she may well have helped her cause by flashing her experience and the breadth of her knowledge on the issues. Clinton was crisp and concise, rarely going over her allotted time and keeping to her message of experience and leadership."

MICHAEL CROWLEY - HILLARY 'SMOOTH AND STEADY': "Smooth and steady--she's disciplined and it shows."

TUCKER CARLSON - HILLARY 'RELATES TO THE CROWD,' SHOWED 'NOBODY IS BETTER IN THIS FORM THAN SHE IS':"Clinton came out and immediately got specific and earthy. There is a gospel band, voices of Christ up on the stage. She comes out and immediately says the music here world-renowned, terrific, I love South Carolina, your ROTC program has boosted all these generals, details about the school itself, the crowd loved her.Hillary Clinton always goes for the specifics, and always goes for the specifics that relates to the crowd that she is speaking to. Nobody is better in this form than she is."

Pat Buchanan:
Hillary Rodham Clinton entered this debate as the front-runner and leaves this debate as a stronger front-runner. She won going away.

Overall - almost everyone is saying the same thing- Clinton was the front runner going in, and solidified her position coming out. Obama performed at lower expectations, and some even have Biden coming in second ahead of Obama.

First Debate of the Season

2007-04-26T18:21:00.000-07:00

So how did everyone do? The debate itself was very tame. There were very, very few outward personal attacks on anyone, but there were subliminal attacks left and right.

For one, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel made attacks on the other 6 candidates left and right in regards to the war. I wouldnt put too much stock in it since both poll 2% or lower. Their roles are to bring the parties more to the left, but they werent very successful.

Barack Obama - Started off very slowly. He wasnt answering as eloquently as he has spoken in the past. Overall he did a good job. I would say his biggest problem was with his spat with Kucinich and Gravel. I think that showed his inexperience. He took their comments too personally and got stuck in a little tiff with the others. Other than that he did a very good job.

Bill Richardson- I didnt like his debating skills at all. He was overly verbose and took up way too much time. I know he was trying to show that he is very experienced, but I feel he couldnt do it quickly and authoritatively. He lost people every single answer because he would say "I have two things" and then it would go on for ages. But it could have been because it was his first time to really get his message across. Obama and Hillary clearly have more media attention, followed by Edwards, all of the others are stuck.

Chris Dodd- I enjoyed listening to Chris Dodd, but I dont think the debate helped him much. He wont break into the top tier with this debate. He does have potential. He's very bright.

Joe Biden - Yes.
That was classic. Very good sense of humor, but I dont think he distinguished himself.

Hillary Clinton - I was ecstatic that she did so well. Every answer she gave was very clear, and she put a lot of pressure on the Bush administration. What was especially interesting was when she was asked about Virginia Tech. I thought she might shed a tear. She seemed very sincere. Its also the only time she mentioned former President Bill Clinton and it was not in connection to his service, but on their trip to Columbine after the shooting there. Very smart move. I think she did the best, I might be prejudiced in my opinion because I am a Hillary supporter, but what really was great is that she did not disappoint me AT ALL.

John Edwards - John Edwards has come an amazingly long way since the last election. If his goal was to show he isnt the "inexperienced guy" he did just that and passed the buck to Obama. Now Obama has to overcome that title, an uphill battle if he performs like this in every debate. But back to John Edwards, one of those "secret jabs" came when talking about his plan for healthcare. His jab was aimed at Hillary Clinton. He simply stated that something to the effect that all the candidates are talking about their plans for this and for that but dont have very detailed plans about how to get to them. He then stated his plan on healthcare. It is developed, but very narrow and doesnt leave much room for other possibilities. I guess my job in pointing it out is just as candid as his jab, but trust me it was there.

Dennis Kucinich - Unfortunately for Kucinich, his fire was stolen from him by Mike Gravel. Kucinich is one of the most liberal people in the running. His goal was to separate his stance on the war from the other candidates (and Iran). This was in response to an answer by Obama. Kucinich was allowed to rebut him, and after Obama counter rebutted (lol) Mike Gravel got in. If Kucinich could have gotten in before Gravel, it would have greatly helped him. But since he didnt, it only slightly helped him. This in effect, hurt Obama as well.

Mike Gravel - Now when I saw the earnings after the first quarter of fundraising and saw that Gravel had less than 500 dollars, I was pretty confused as to why he was still in. But after tonight, I have new respect for the elderly statesman. He used to be the US Senator from Alaska. He was instrumental in getting the US out of Vietnam, and the spectre of Iraq has reawakened old Mike. He is a spirited figure with a seriousness in his mind, but unfortunately, it comes off as humorous.

My predictions:
Clinton will pull ahead in polls after todays debate (This does not take into account the Pew poll released tonight which has her with an effective lead).
Obama will drop one or two percent
Edwards will jump a few points
Dodd, Richardson, Biden - stay about the same
Kucinich - might increase but not more than 1% *basically he will statistically stay the same
Gravel - statistically, he will be an asterisk, but he might have taken some steam off of Kucinich.

signing off, i have work to do!

Rudolph Giuliani -

2007-04-25T16:25:00.000-07:00

Well, Rudy's campaign started off with a bang. And after the dust settls, everyone will see that the bang was Rudy shooting himself in the foot. This week, he quite possibly ruined his chance of becoming the next president. But it isnt the first time he stuck his foot in his mouth.
A few weeks ago, Giuliani said that if he were president, and congress didnt pass legislation he would find money elsewhere. I dont know where Rudy gets his information from, but the US President does not have a secret bank with one hundred billion dollars to continue a war. He should also read the constitution which explicitly gives Congress the power to raise an army (funding). But aside from Giuliani's ability to understand constitutional law, this week he made even more abhorent, appalling statements in the likes of Bush/Cheney.

While it was successful in the 2004 presidential campaign where John Kerry was swift boated, the strategy was a complete failure for republicans in the 2006 midterm elections. The strategy is saying that if Americans vote for the democrats, another 9/11 catastrophe will occur. But if he was president, it would not happen.

After this blunder, there is only one direction for Giuliani, down. Giuliani has consistently supported President Bush on the surge of Iraqi troops, even though a majority of Americans oppose it. Giuliani is using the same line of attack that lost Republican control of the House and the Senate. Giuliani is also ignorant of Middle East politics.
He stated, “[Terrorists] hate us and not because of anything bad we have done; it has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine." Unfortunately, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a heavy burden and is directly linked to terrorism.

The most amuzing thing is that in a Fox (conservative fox) opinion/dynamics poll, Hillary was voted the candidate most likely to be tough on terrorism, even beating Giuliani.

On a separate note, both Hillary and Obama blasted Giuliani on his statement.
Hillary stated:

"There are people right now in the world, not just wishing us harm but actively planning and plotting to cause us harm. If the last six years of the Bush Administration have taught us anything, it's that political rhetoric won't do anything to quell those threats. And that America is ready for a change. One of the great tragedies of this Administration is that the President failed to keep this country unified after 9/11. We have to protect our country from terrorism -- it shouldn't be a Democratic fight or a Republican fight. The plain truth is that this Administration has done too little to protect our ports, make our mass transit safer, and protect our cities. They have isolated us in the world and have let Al Qaeda regroup. The next President is going to be left with these problems and will have to do what it takes to make us safer and bring Democrats and Republicans together around this common mission of protecting our nation. That is exactly what has to be done and what I am ready to do."

Obama stated:
"Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low and I believe Americans are ready to reject those kind of politics. America's mayor should know that when it comes to 9/11 and fighting terrorists, America is united. We know we can win this war based on shared purpose, not the same divisive politics that question your patriotism if you dare to question failed policies that have made us less secure. I think we should focus on strengthening our intelligence, working with local authorities and doing all the things we haven't yet done to keep Americans safe. The threat we face is real, and deserves better than to be the punchline of another political attack."

President Bill Clinton

2007-04-25T16:06:00.000-07:00

One of the most powerful things Hillary Clinton has going for her is the former President, Bill Clinton. A majority of Americans polled say they miss Bill Clinton. His charismatic character sends shockwaves through crowds. (CNN)

I have the force of Bill Clinton's presence. I went to a Hillary Clinton Campaign event in NYC on
April 23rd, 2007. The crowd went wild when Bill Clinton came to the stage. After 6 years and 4 months of the current administration, and as Bush's numbers continue to slump around the 33% range, more and more Americans.

According to the latest Rasmussen poll, more americans want Bill Clinton as a roaming ambassador than those that do not. Also by two to one, voters think Bill Clinton would be an asset, not a liability, if his wife becomes president, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted April 10-12.

Abroad, President Bill Clinton holds a lot of respect. With his hard work after the disastrous tsunami, his highly successful Clinton Global Initiative, and his tenure as President, Bill Clinton has the credibility necessary to turn the image of America around. Coupled with this is Hillary Clinton's determination, intelligence and ability to get things done. Plus, as First Lady, Hillary Clinton travelled with her husband abroad. The Bill/Hill combo is America's best bet for a reversal of America's image abroad.

In my opinion, once the time gets closer to actual elections, and Americans sit down and start paying attention, they will see that Hillary Clinton is the right choice for President in 2008.

Confidence: part deux

2007-04-23T11:27:00.000-07:00

There are greater signs of trouble for A.G. Alberto Gonzales:
Today President Bush said:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Monday rejected calls for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, saying Gonzales' Capitol Hill testimony last week "increased my confidence" in him.

Bush said Gonzales' performance before critical U.S. lawmakers showed that the attorney general "broke no laws" in the firings last year of eight U.S. attorneys despite Democratic suspicions they were politically motivated.

We all know when Bush has confidence in someone it is bad news. So "increased confidence" is even worse news.
No one said what Gonzales did was illegal. US Attorney's serve at the will of the President. They can be fired for no cause, or good cause, but can they be fired for bad cause? Thats a different question. Some might say no cause is bad cause, but they are in fact distinct legal questions. Gonzales mnight have proved that he broke no law, but he didnt prove that he didnt fire them for political reasons.

I think he should resign. But if he doesnt, and if Bush doesnt axe him, then it just makes republicans look bad. I am fine by that as well.

Hillary at Rutgers:

2007-04-22T11:10:00.001-07:00

Irresponsible blogging: Politicalderby.com

2007-04-22T08:03:00.000-07:00

So I was reading other blogs and came across Politicalderby.com

They purport to be "Speaking from the Left, the Right, and everywhere in between" -- I guess its supposed to be pretty balanced, but it is far from equal.

The website has a ranking system and right now they have Hillary and Obama tied for first. When talking about Iraq the bloggers write:

"By taking the “inaccurate information route” and absolving herself of any wrongdoing in voting to go to war in Iraq, Hillary Clinton paints herself as an aloof caricature of a politician. Her staunch refusal to admit that she might have maybe, possibly, under some circumstances made a mistake in voting to launch a war that the majority of America doesn’t support emphasizes how out of touch with the public she is.
I’d prefer that my president didn’t make mistakes, but, since none of the candidates running are robots or infallible deities, I’ll accept a human that can at least recognize when he makes them. And unlike Edwards and Clinton, Obama doesn’t have to do that — regardless of how he would have voted in 2002."

I thought it was an obvious plug for Obama, so of course I have to give my two cents- so here I go.

First, the vote was NOT a vote to go to war in Iraq, it was a vote to authorize President Bush to go if he thought it was the right thing to do. With great authority comes great responsibility. Bush mucked it up, and decided to go in. Bush made the mistake and not the senators who voted to authorize it.
Second, saying "voting to launch a war that the majority of America doesn’t support emphasizes how out of touch with the public she is" is a cheap shot. The majority of Americans NOW are against the war, but in 2003, there was over 66% support for the war, a super majority. Comparing what a politician did 4 years ago against public opinion today is very weak. If you are going to attack Hillary Clinton, dont try doing it in a roundabout kind of way and under the pretense that you are a fair and balanced website.

The other problem is the actual rankings; they dont get updated enough! But the bloggers spend hours gushing about Obama and target practice on the other candidates.

Anyway -- take away what you will from it.

partial birth abortion v. late term abortion

2007-04-20T21:27:00.000-07:00

I want it to be very clear that Partial Birth Abortion does not mean Late term abortion. A late term abortion can be a partial birth abortion, but the terms are not synonymous.

Justice Kennedy wrote:
"And it applies both previability and postviability because, by common understanding and scientific terminology, a fetus is a living organism within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb."
Gonzales v. Carhart 2007 WL 1135596, *3 (U.S.) (U.S.,2007)

Previability is less than 24 weeks, 24 weeks is 6 months, and less than 6 months is not "late term."

Endorsements

2007-04-20T18:50:00.000-07:00

Well - All candidates get endorsements. For three Democratic front runners, all have had a tremendous amount of endorsements. Right now I personally feel that endorsements in Iowa and New Hampshire are the most important, followed by endorsements by nationally known names, third I believe in all the states that have a February 5th primary (super duper Tuesday) and then all the other states and public interest groups (Unions). I feel the least important are from strongly held republican states because they will have little impact on the actual election.
So here's a list (The list was compiled from press releases on each of the candidates' websites). I am truly sorry if I have missed anyone. It is not intentional.

John Edwards
Iowa
John Vilsack was running for President, he dropped out of the race in late February - A lot of his supporters decided to endorse John Edwards on March 6th. On March 23rd, John Vilsack endorsed Hillary Clinton. The following endorsed John Edwards on March 6th.
Kurt Swaim, John Campbell, Robert Bell, Merle Wilson, Edward Vanlennep, Susan Baker, David Helman, Cathy Helman, Gerald Dingman, Michael Warner, John Riccolo,Ed Skinner,Lois Skinner, Brad Skinner, Elisabeth Clapp, Richard Tharp, Katherine Aller, Harold Aller, Angela Vinson, Rebecca Elson, Pamela Hogan, Thomas Kerr, Nancy Garretson, Caroll Sesker, Janice Shrader, Albert Hodapp, Arleta Peters, Josephine Shepard, James Gran, George Otto, Dorothy Probasco, Ronald Hafits, Gladys Mathews, Marion Morehead, Gertrude Godfrey, Barton Rule, Garold Becker, Joyce Garretson, Robert Garretson, Dorothy Malek, Robert Kocher, Robert Petrzelka, Zora Ronan, Paul Ronan, Dorothy Cookson, Dorothy Henry, Robert Paulson, Joyce Lambert, Olen Lambert, Mary Pritchard, Robert Pritchard, Margaret Swalwell, Wanda Speck, Deanna Klosterman, Miles Klosterman, Samuel Fazio, Betty Fazio, Mark McDonald, Ann McTaggart, Michael McTaggart, Darlene Peterson, Virginia Magden, Nancy Young, Mary Sandeen, Karolee Wirt, Dennis Keithly, Cynthia Keithly, Wanda Helling, Mary White, Allen Rich,
Guy Curran, Mira Dingman, Cathy Wright, Darren Shull, Donald Beck, Virginia Beck, Dianna Klaus, Frank Harger, Sally Ruth, Lee Garrett, Jean Garrett, Larry Baldosier, Frank Dietrick, Patricia Huffman, Susannah Kirk, Thaddeus Katzmark, Peggy Busch, Jack Olds, Orville Birkestrand, Thora Sorensen, Marilyn Brau, Franklin White, George Bonnett, Anna Brown, Theresa Allen, David Cooper, Bonnie Cooper, Diana Swihart, Susan Snyder, Todd Liechty, Russ Wiesley, Maurice Glenn, Charles Gifford.

New Jersey- (Feb 5th primary)
Richard Codey

California - (Feb 5th primary)
John Burton, Herb Wesson, Jr

South Carolina
For some reason, in cutting and pasting, the South Carolina endorsements were not working correctly, so you can just see them by clicking here.

Texas (a strong GOP state)
Charlie Gonzalez, Chris Bel

The seven North Carolina congressmen (Edwards home state)
G.K Butterfield, Bob Etheridge, David Price, Mike McIntyre, Heath Shuler, Mel Watt and Brad Miller

Oklahoma-
Mike Morgan, Charlie Laster, Jay Paul Gumm, Jeff Rabon, Charles Wyrick, Kenneth Corn,
Sean Burrage, Judy Eason McIntyre, Richard Lerblance, Jim Wilson,Danny Morgan, James Covey, David Braddock, Wallace Collins, Wes Hilliard, Jerry McPeak, Wade Rousselot, Terry Harrison, Eric Proctor, John Auffet, Scott BigHorse, Neil Brannon, John Carey, Jerry Ellis, Larry Glenn, Darrell Gilbert, Richard Morrissette, Brian Renegar, Paul Roan, Glen Bud Smithson

Georgia
Governor Roy Barnes, Atlanta business leader Shi Shailendra

Wisconsin
Congressman David Obey

Minnesota
Congressman Jim Oberstar, Thomas Bakk, Steve Murphy, Ann Rest, Tony Sertich, Jim Davnie, Alice Hausman, Thomas Huntley, Sheldon Johnson, John Lesch, Erin Murphy, Aaron Peterson, Marsha Swails, Ryan Winkler, Becky Lourey, Andrew Dawkins, Randy Asunma, Mary Rosenthal, George Sundstrom,Ted Mondale,Scott Benson, Gail Dorfman, Retired Judge Gerald Heaney, Alan Netland, Laura Nevitt, Erik Peterson

Kentucky - former Kentucky Congressman Ken Lucas

South Dakota - Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin

LGBT Leaders -- for the list click here

Barack Obama
OK - maybe i am just not finding it on his site, but the only one I found was:
Iowa - Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller and Iowa State Treasurer Michael Fitzgerald
??? I am sure he has a lot of backing in Illinois. But its just not on his site. His press releases go back to Feb 8th, 07 and his Newsroom only April 5th. Not sure whats going on. If anyone figures it out, please let me know.
Moving on.

Hillary Clinton
New Hampshire-
House Majority Leader Mary Jane Wallner, Bette Lasky, Bill Shaheen, Martha McLeod, Peter H. Allen, Peter Cote, John DeJoie, Carol Estes, Raymond Gagnon,; Doreen Howard, Jean Jeudy, Steve Johnson, Melanie Levesque, Edgar Mears, Michael Reuschel, Deanna Rollo, Michael Rollo, Hector Velez, Jim Splaine, and Jane Wood. Delmar Burridge, Jane Clemons, David Cote, Carol Friedrich, Jill Shaffer Hammond, Angeline Kopka, Gus Lerandeau, Anthony Matarazzo and Trinka Russell.

Iowa - (i mentioned this above, Tom Vilsack dropped out of the race in late February, in early March, most of his supporters endorsed Edwards, but in Late-Mid March, Tom Vilsack endorsed Hillary Clinton, how this changes endorsements in Iowa, it is not clear.)
Governor Tom Vilsack First Lady Christie Vilsack

New Jersey - (Feb 5th Primary)
Governor Jon Corzine, Congressmen Frank Pallone and Rob Andrews, Brendan Byrne, Jim Florio, Herb Klein, Joe Roberts, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Joe Cryan, Tonio Burgos, June Fisher, Joe Doria, Barbara Buono, Nia Gill, Ray Lesniak, Loretta Weinberg, Tom Giblin, Valerie Vainieri Huttle, Joe DiVincenzo, Brian Hughes, Chuck Chiarello, J. Christian Bollwage, Glen Gilmore, Meryl Frank, Alberto Santos, Joey Torres, Susan Bass Levin, Joanne Rajoppi, Armondo Fontoura, Jerry Speziale, Ralph Froehlich, Ron Ruff, Richard Perr, Phil Thigpen, David Del Vecchio, Rich McClellan, Vic Scudiery, Lew Candura, Wyatt Earp, John Currie, Elia Pelios, Megan Ward, David DeGerolamo

California (Feb 5th)
Antonio Villaraigosa

South Carolina - David J. Mack III, John Scott Jr., Terry Alexander, Maggie Glover, Bernice G. Scott, Joyce Dickerson, Dwayne Smiling, Henry Darby, Teddie Pryor Sr., Marva Smalls, Robert Ford and Darrell Jackson,Frank E. Willis

Massachusetts -
Congressman Jim McGovern, Edward Augustus, Steven Baddour, Harriette Chandler, Robert Creedon, Susan Fargo, Joan Menard, Richard Moore, Robert O'Leary, Marc Pacheco, Steven Panagiotakos, Pamela Resor, Karen Spilka, Susan Tucker, Ruth Balser, Daniel Bosley, Geraldine Creedon, Lida Harkins, Kay Khan, Pam Richardson

Florida - Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Congressman Alcee Hastings, Nan Rich, Sandy Freedman, Sue Gunzburger, Ken Keechl, John Rodstrom, Diana Wasserman-Rubin, Frank Ortis, Michael Udine, Maureen Dinnen, Jennifer Gottlieb, Eleanor Sobel, April Griffin, Susan Valdes, Pat Frank, Charlotte Rodstrom, Jared Moskowitz, Ana Cruz, Matilda Garcia

Nevada- Hispanic leadership council (Click Here).

Pennsylvania - Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz

Missouri - Francis G. Slay

Nationally recognized endorsements --
Raul Yzaguirre, former president of the National Council of La Raza, helped build NCLR into the largest Latino civil rights and advocacy organization in the country.
Former Vice Presidential Candidate and women's rights pioneer Geraldine A. Ferraro (Fordham Law Alumnus) announced her endorsement.
Sports legend and social activist Billie Jean King.
Kim Gandy, chair of the National Organization for Women

This has taken a while to compile, and i am sure i missed a few-- but what does it mean?
Basically, on the info that people can readily find on the candidates' websites, it looks like Hillary and Edwards have the bulk of endorsements.

Hillary seems to be dominating NH, and Edwards has the upper hand in Iowa, but all of his endorsements came from Tom Vilsack's crowd, and Tom Vilsack then endorsed Hillary Clinton. Who knows how that will play out. Hillary has the upper hand in New Jersey, and while Edwards has a lot of endorsements, a lot of his endorsements are coming from smaller states. Hillary also has a greater group of well known people who are on the National stage (Geraldine Ferraro and Billie Jean King).

It looks like Hillary is in the lead.

Global warming - global problems

2007-04-20T17:52:00.000-07:00

Well, Sunday is EARTH DAY --
2007 might yet be the year the US actually took global warming seriously. Well its about time. I for one would like to thank Al Gore for all of his efforts. If it wasn't for an Inconvenient Truth, he would have never been on the MTV Movie Awards or at the Oscars. Al Gore is probably one of the most environmentally conscious people who served in Congress, and as Vice President he pushed for tougher EPA measures.

This is why I really don't understand Ralph Nader's 2000 Presidential run. Basically, he needed something to campaign on, and since Florida has been such an environmentally conscious state and is a swing state in Presidential elections, he actually made an impact. Al Gore had more votes than Bush in Florida, but it was very, very close. If Ralph Nader, the "Green Party" candidate, did not run, it would have been a much greater difference in votes and Al Gore would have been President. By running as a "Green Party" candidate, Ralph Nader doomed the country to Bush's harsh climate policy. Ralph Nader caused more harm than good. Way to subvert the most environmentally conscious Democratic Leader we've had in a long time Ralph Nader.
On a side note, Al Gore just got approval to install Solar Energy Panels in his home. The town said he can put panels as long as they are not in the view of neighbors. Congrats to Al Gore, shame on the town ordinance. Solar panels are ugly, so you cant have them. Way to be so materialistic!
Al Gore was recently awarded an award by the UN.

Moving on -- Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign is going green on EARTH DAY. Senator Clinton released this statement on the issue:
"In order to address the climate crisis, we all must act -- and that includes our campaign," Clinton said. "As a nation, it is past time that we met this challenge head-on by increasing energy efficiency and investments in clean and renewable energy. If we do nothing, the planet will continue to warm over the next century, with widespread and potentially devastating effects."
Her campaign will take extra steps to go green.

Nancy Pelosi, D-Cal., has also pushed for the Capital to go green:
"The environmental challenges we face are as local as our neighborhoods and as global as our planet," the California Democrat said. "The House must lead by example, and it is time for Congress to act on its own carbon footprint."
You can read more here.

Its nice to seeing strong women leaders. Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton are bringing important issues to the forefront!

Attorney General Gonzales

2007-04-20T08:20:00.000-07:00

Sen. Coburn had some harsh words for Gonzales:

Sen. Specter gets angry at Alberto Gonzales:

Sen. Kohl and Gonzales interaction:

Other notable statments:

"Mr. Attorney General, most of this is a stretch. It's clear to me that some of these people just had personality conflicts with people in your office or the White House and we made up reasons to fire them" said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican.

Press release of Sen. Charles Schumer D-N Y

"This letter is to express our strong disappointment with how your Department has handled the cases of eight U.S. Attorneys who have been asked to resign over the past few months, and to take issue with a number of assertions you made in an op-ed in yesterday's USA Today." to read the rest of the letter go here: http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/record.cfm?id=270309&

Confidence?

2007-04-20T06:58:00.000-07:00

Every now and then, President Bush makes a statement that he has "confidence" in someone who is in some type of trouble. Trouble can be anything from discontent of the type of policy someone carries out, actions a person took while in a leadership position, or hiring people for reasons unrelated to actual job performance.

Here's a short list of some of the people Bush has "confidence" in:
Donald Rumsfeld, Former US Secretary of Defense
Paul Wolfowitz, Bank Chief (World Bank)
Alberto Gonzales, US Attorney General

So what did these guys do?

Donald Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense. His claim to fame is the failed Iraq war policy the US followed for 3 years as well as the "transformation of the military" which never occured. Up until the November 2006 elections, President Bush had the utmost confidence in Donald Rumsfeld. After Republicans were clobbered in the election, Bush accepted Rumsfeld's resignation (even though he offered his resignation before!).

Paul Wolfowitz is head the current head of the World Bank. He used his position to pressure others in the bank to promote his "special friend" Shaha Riza. And guess what! He was Assistant Secretary of Defense under Rumsfeld. hmmm. So has this happened before in politics? Of course!
This is eerily reminiscent of John McGreevy, former Gov. of New Jersey who gave positions to his boyfriends. At the time, Republicans thought this was absolutely horrible, and eventually McGreevy stepped down. But now, Bush has "confidence" in Wolfowitz.

Next, lets look at "embattled Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales." So what did he do? It is believed he fired 8 US Attorneys because they had political differences with the White House. He was grilled yesterday (April 19th, 2007) in Congress, and heavily criticized by members of both parties. Here are some quotes from his fellow GOP party members:
"Mr. Attorney General, most of this is a stretch. It's clear to me that some of these people just had personality conflicts with people in your office or the White House and we made up reasons to fire them."
- Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican.
"I believe that the best way to put this behind us is your resignation."
- Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican
But Bush again offered his "confidence" in Al Gonzales.

It seems that every time Bush has "confidence" in someone, they get impaled by the media, the public, and even by other Republicans. Bush's approval ratings are SO LOW that anyone he has confidence in, gets life sucked out of them, and eventually they end up in a worse position than they were in to start with.

So what do i think about Bush's confidence? Well, i think its a death sentence. I would never want to have Bush's confidence, and I never want it to be publicly stated that he has confidence in me. The President is very stubborn when it comes to his friends. If he likes the person, and they are the worst person for the job, he does not seem to care as long as they still think he is cool. Colin Powell disagreed with him, and was not asked to be Secretary of State the next term. I think he believes that if he has enough "Yes men," and they continue telling him he is right, then he actually starts believing that he is right. In the long run, I think it will help the Democratic Party because Bush will taint everything, and the longer he is in power, the worse off the Republican party is.

Gonzales v. Carhart

2007-04-19T18:42:00.000-07:00

So the court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003" does not violate a womans rights even though there is no exception for the health of the mother(Gonzales v. Carhart). In 2000, the court struck down a state law that was very similar to the one in question in Gonzales v. Carhart. So what changed?
Answer -- George Bush.
George Bush pushed on two neo-con judges onto the court - one replacing the moderate Justice O'Connor.

So what did the decision actually do? It basically upheld a law passed by congress that has never been enforced. The court overruled the decision in three different cases, in three different circuits. All three circuits invalidated the law because of the lack of an exception to a woman's health.

The court held that:
1-Act's prohibition on “intact” dilation and evacuation (D & E) procedure is not void for vagueness on its face;
2- most reasonable reading of terms of Act is that it does not sweep too broadly to include prototypical D & Es;
3-Act does not on its face impose unconstitutional substantial obstacle on women seeking late-term, but previability, abortions;
4-Act furthered legitimate congressional purposes; and
5-absence of health exception did not render Act facially unconstitutional.

So what is banned?
A procedure called a Dilation & Evacuation (D & E). This is a "partial birth abortion." Partial birth abortion does not mean "Late term abortion." Again -- this does not mean that an abortion in the 3rd trimester is illegal. Physicians can still perform D & C's (Dilation and Curretage). D & C's have greater health risks than D & E's.

The court did not ban late term abortions, the court did not ban abortions after 3 months, the court only banned D & E's- a way to have an abortion... It just so happens that this type of abortion is the safest way to have an abortion *for the pregnant woman.*

Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion ignoring 4 decades of precedent. Ginsberg wrote the dissenting opinion. She states:
"In sum, the notion that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act furthers any legitimate governmental interest is, quite simply, irrational. The Court's defense of the statute provides no saving explanation. In candor, the Act, and the Court's defense of it, cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court-and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."

Be strong Justice Ginsberg - I stand in solidarity with you.

On a side note - Senator Clinton was the first presidential candidate to respond (from the front runners) to the courts decision on her website. There is a lively debate on the blog on her site www.hillaryclinton.com

She released a statement which stated:
"This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.""

Right on Hillary -

Today Obama and Edwards also released statements. A day late I say.

Well thats all for today- Will try to keep this as up to date as I can, but finals are coming soon!