Just A Flesh Wound

I'm a sucker for Monty Python references.



By the way, while I think she is being sincere here, Hillary Clinton will not be taking this fight to the convention. That's because the superdelegates are rushing to Obama at such a rate that Michigan and Florida can be seated, even with her most favorable numbers, and he'd still win. He has a majority of pledged delegates and that will soon include Michigan and Florida, too. I don't like the primary system for Democrats for a variety of reasons, but under the system we have, the people and the superdelegates have made their choice. There's a reason Obama is simultaneously being very admiring of and ignoring the challenge of Clinton, and running the general election - and by the way I like this tactic:

Ten years ago, Obama said, McCain proposed barring registered lobbyists from working for candidates' campaigns.

"John McCain then would be pretty disappointed in John McCain now, because he hired some of the biggest lobbyists in Washington to run his campaign," Obama told a crowd of 15,000 at a Tampa arena.

McCain recently instituted a new no-lobbyist policy on his campaign, forcing out some top aides.

"And when he was called on it, his top lobbyist actually had the nerve to say the American people won't care about this," Obama said.

He does have a knack of picking up on things in the alternative, progressive media and using them. Obama can play this game of how he doesn't buy into framing or partisan gamesmanship, and he certainly analogizes that to blogging, but he's so far been running this general election like a blogger - speaking truthfully and forcefully while armed with new information to use against his opponent. I'll let him play the unity and hope line - but he's proving himself through his actions.

California House Endorsements, June 2008

(cross-posted from Calitics. I had substantial input on these endorsements and I agree with all of them, so I'm giving them sanction here)

Congressional Endorsements:

We are proud to be giving opinions on every race contested by more than one Democrat, and also every race with a Democrat facing a Republican incumbent (The Democratic incumbents facing no opposition don't much need our support or to raise their name recognition, though we will talk about the incumbents we like in a later post). It's a big job, but having covered these Congressional races for well over a year now, we feel that we have the insight into what's happening throughout the state to offer this slate of endorsements. See the flip for explanations.

CA-01: no endorsement
CA-02: Jeff Morris
CA-03: Bill Durston
CA-04: Charlie Brown
CA-08: no endorsement
CA-12: Rep. Jackie Speier
CA-21: Larry Johnson
CA-24: Mary Pallant
CA-25: Jackie Conaway
CA-26: Russ Warner
CA-33: Rep. Diane Watson
CA-37: no endorsement
CA-40: Christina Avalos
CA-41: Rita Ramirez-Dean
CA-42: Ron Shepston
CA-43: Joanne Gilbert
CA-44: Bill Hedrick
CA-45: Julie Bornstein
CA-46: Debbie Cook
CA-48: Steve Young
CA-49: Robert Hamilton
CA-50: no endorsement
CA-51: Rep. Bob Filner
CA-52: Mike Lumpkin
CA-53: no endorsement

CA-01: No Endorsement

Mike Thompson is a Blue Dog in a seat that doesn't require one. His lifetime Progressive Punch Score of 86.25 ranks 150th in the House of Representatives. He voted the wrong way on warrentless wiretapping and a number of other issues. So, perhaps it is best to give democracy an opportunity to work its magic in this district. Either he connects with the community and votes better, or he's voted out. So, we were interested when we heard that Thompson is being challenged by Mitchell Clogg. However, we are not sure Clogg is the right fit for the job either. We provide no endorsement in the race.

CA-02: Jeff Morris

Morris is a Trinity County Supervisor running against far-right winger Wally Herger. This is a Democratic year, and Morris is a strong candidate.

CA-03: Bill Durston

Bill Durston is back for another round against Dan Lungren. Our former Attorney General has drifted to the right in Congress. His Progressive Punch score is 4.12, substantially lower than even Tom Tancredo's 6.72. Durston's experience in Viet Nam and as an emergency room physician will serve him well in Congress. Calitics spoke to Dr. Durston in San Jose, and we were once again impressed. Durston will be a fine congressman.

CA-04: Charlie Brown

Charlie Brown is something of a netroots favorite. He's not necessarily the most progressive on all of the issues, but he's doing yeoman's work trying to turn one of the reddest districts blue. And he came close back in 2006 with a weakened John Doolittle. This time he awaits the winner of the McClintock/Ose slugfest. But don't count Charlie out. His high positives and name ID make this one of the seats to watch this year.

CA-08: No Endorsement
We do this with something of a heavy heart as we were thrilled to see San Francisco's representative become Speaker. However, since she has risen to become the first female Speaker of the House, she has disappointed on a number of issues. Most notably, she has continued to allow full and unconditional funding of the occupation of Iraq. That being said, we expect Speaker Pelosi to continue on as Speaker come 2009. With a Democratic White House and a more solidly blue Congress, we expect her to improve upon her record.

CA-12: Jackie Speier

On her first day in Congress, Jackie Speier read a speech that caused several Republicans to get up and walk out in protest. Jackie is a fighter, and has always been. She has already made her mark on Congress, and you can bet that she'll do everything to make sure San Francisco and San Mateo are heard from.

CA-21: Larry Johnson

This is the only one of three contiguous seats in the Central Valley that is actually being contested by a Democrat this year, and we appreciate former airline captain Larry Johnson's effort to unseat Devin Nunes enough to reward him with an endorsement. We spoke with Johnson at the convention in San Jose, and we like that he's come up from the grassroots (DFA, Democratic Clubs, Fresno County Democratic Central Committee) to make this challenge.

CA-24: Mary Pallant

This is one of six seats currently held by the GOP where more Democrats voted in the February primaries than Republicans, so it's definitely a seat to watch. Jill Martinez ran in this seat in 2006 and made a little headway against Elton Gallegly, but she got into this year's race late and has been stretching the truth about her campaign's financial status. Mary Pallant is a proud progressive, a "more and better" Democrat who has been impressively racking up endorsements and working the local grassroots to promote her campaign. She also has supported the Repsonsible Plan to End the War in Iraq and is a strong advocate of single-payer healthcare (this earned her the CNA endorsement). We support her candidacy.

CA-25: Jackie Conaway

Jackie is running unopposed to face Rep. Buck McKeon in this expansive district. This is another seat where Democrats outnumbered Republicans in the February primary, so in a tidal wave election this is a winnable seat. She's too far to the right on immigration issues for our taste, but we admire the spirit of this former SEIU member.

CA-26: Russ Warner

Russ Warner was new to politics in 2006 and he did not run the campaign in the primary necessary to win. Having learned from this mistake, he's back with a far superior organization and the ability to compete with Bush rubber stamp David Dreier. This is a winnable race that has been targeted by the DCCC, and we feel Warner has the best opportunity to capitalize on that, especially with his recent timely rebukes of Dreier on such issues like the housing crisis and S-CHIP. Cynthia Matthews had her opportunity to face Dreier in 2006 and came up with virtually no infrastructure to challenge him, so Warner is better positioned.

CA-33: Diane Watson

For some reason, two Democrats are challenging progressive leader and Out Of Iraq Caucus member Diane Watson in the Democratic primary. We welcome primaries, but both of these challengers, Felicia Ford and Mervin Lee Evans, ran in the CA-37 special election last year, and I don't think I'm mischaracterizing them by calling them 50 flavors of crazy. By contrast, Diane Watson is one of our better leaders in the California caucus.

CA-37: No endorsement

Laura Richardson won this seat in a 2007 special election with a nasty, divisive, racially-themed campaign to beat State Sen. Jenny Oropeza. We didn't like it at the time, and while her voting record has been fair, we see little reason to reward her now with an endorsement in her primary race against perennial candidates Peter Matthews and Lee Davis. Matthews is a solid progressive, and we would recommend him for the seat if he ever showed the potential to compete legitimately in a Congressional race despite running for them a number of times.

CA-40: Christina Avalos

There are two Democrats running to upset Rep. Ed Royce, and we feel there is no contest as to which properly represents our Democratic values. Avalos is a full-throated progressive in the mold of Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who has been endorsed by DFA Orange County, the Orange County Labor Federation and more. We add our names to the list by endorsing her grassroots campaign.

CA-41: Dr. Rita Ramirez-Dean

We're excited that four Democrats have stepped up to challenge Rep. Jerry "I've sent countless defense attorneys to college as they try to keep my butt out of jail" Lewis, but our opinion is that Dr. Rita Ramirez-Dean is the best. She has run for the Assembly in this San Bernardino-area district before, and as a 38-year educator we feel she has the best experience on that crucial issue. Hopefully she can make a run at unseating the fully corrupt Rep. Lewis.

CA-42: Ron Shepston

(disclaimer: David Dayen does some unpaid volunteer work for Shepston and his vote was not counted) In 2006, Rep. Gary Miller ran unopposed, despite revelations of seedy development deals and tax evasion that prompted an FBI investigation. This year, three Democrats have stepped up to the plate and decided to run against him. Ron Shepston was the first. He literally comes out of the netroots as a diarist on Daily Kos, and while his campaign has had its share of missteps, we feel that his profile as a veteran and an avionics engineer, his leadership during the California wildfires, and recent signs that his campaign is back on track, merits the endorsement. His positions on the issues, including support of the Responsible Plan to End The War in Iraq, are sterling.

CA-43: Joanne Gilbert

This is the only race where we have endorsed a challenger to a Democratic incumbent, and it's well-deserved. A member of the Board of Trustees for the Rialto Unified School District, Gilbert is an African-American woman who we feel can lead in this Inland Empire district far better than Rep. Joe Baca, who has done little for the district other than create a mini-political machine for his friends and relatives. These primaries are vital to keeping our elected officials honest and making them understand that their job is to represent the people.


CA-44: Bill Hedrick

While he is running unopposed in the 44th, Bill Hedrick merits an endorsement for his leadership on supporting the Responsible Plan, his lifetime of service in public education, and his courage in being the parent of three soldiers who served in Iraq. Ken Calvert is as corrupt as they come and Hedrick would be a vast improvement.

CA-45: Julie Bornstein

This district absolutely has the potential to be one of the most competitive in the state, especially considering that incumbent Rep. Mary Bono Mack is now married to a colleague from Florida while living mostly in Washington. Fortunately, we have a candidate with the proven experience and leadership to contend with her. Julie Bornstein has served much of this district before in the state Assembly, was the Director of HUD in Gray Davis' administration, and more recently she has led the Campaign for Affordable Housing, showing a policy facility with a key problem facing the country. Her work as a Community College trustee will serve her well, too. We believe that the district deserves better than a cardboard cutout like Mary Bono, and that Bornstein has the right resume to make a challenge here.

CA-46: Debbie Cook

This is one of the most exciting - and challenging - Congressional races in the state this year. Dana Rohrabacher has a long record of backing terrorists and supporting far-right causes, but hasn't done much for his Orange County district. Debbie Cook, currently mayor of Huntington Beach, is the strongest challenger to take on Rohrabacher in a LONG time - and will make a fantastic member of Congress in her own right. Cook has a firm grasp on the needs of this district, from health care to foreclosures to education. Perhaps most significantly, she offers strong expertise on energy and the environment, particularly on the impact of peak oil and the need to develop sustainable transportation alternatives. This is especially important for sprawling Orange County, and Cook's focus on alternative energy promises to help sustain the 46th District's middle class for decades to come. Debbie Cook is a truly transformational candidate, as her Calitics interview shows.

CD-48: Steve Young

Steve Young is a strong progressive who has come into his own as a Congressional candidate, after a strong first showing in the 2005 special election and again in the 2006 race. His list of issues shows how a progressive can appeal to Orange County residents - emphasizing reviving the middle class, reforming government (especially Republican lawbreaking) and helping take care of our veterans - whereas incumbent John Campbell has repeatedly failed them. Steve Young is also a member of the netroots, and will be one of our best allies in Congress.

CD-49: Robert Hamilton

Robert Hamilton is running unopposed for the Democratic nomination, but we believe he represents the values and the beliefs that make all Democrats proud. A Navy veteran, Hamilton was a critic of the Iraq war from the beginning. He is committed to universal health care for all and the need to create new and alternative sources of energy. When faced against Rep. Darrell Issa, the guy who thinks 9/11 was just a plane crash, it's no contest. Hamilton is the best choice for CA-49 and the nation.

CA-50: No endorsement

Brian Bilbray may be wrong about virtually everything, but he's at least smart enough to know it's a bad year to be the right wing ideologue that he is. This is an exceptionally vulnerable district, and we've been impressed both by Nick Leibham's infrastructure and organization and by Cheryl Ede's uncompromising, passionate campaign. Either one of them will have a great target in the general, but we aren't prepared endorse Ede until she demonstrates stronger organization or Leibham until he finds a way to consolidate a splintering activist base.

CA-51: Bob Filner

Rep. Bob Filner has been a friend and favorite for a number of years. His work as chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and leadership in the fight to keep Blackwater out of San Diego are just recent examples. We look forward to another term.

CA-52: Mike Lumpkin

Rep. Duncan Hunter didn't get far in his run for President, but he's still stepping aside and apparently handing the Republican nomination to his son. We've got no interest in a Hunter dynasty in eastern San Diego, but are under no illusions: this is one of the toughest slogs of any target in the state. Vickie Butcher's progressive credentials really impress us, but Mike Lumpkin's resume and strong voice calling Republicans out on superfluous wedge issues pushed him ahead by a nose. We've seen a winning recipe emerge from recent Democratic victories in conservative districts, and forcing focus onto the economic issues that are hurting Middle America is getting it done.

CA-53: no endorsement

For far too long, conventional wisdom has improperly painted this as a swing district. In reality, only 40% of California's districts are safer by PVI, making this a district that should support a strong progressive voice. While Susan Davis' leadership on issues close to our hearts like election integrity has been admirable, we're thankful that primary challenger Mike Copass has challenged her record on the war and more broadly, failing to block the failed policies of George W. Bush. Copass got a late start and has faced an uphill battle to build infrastructure, but we hope to hear more from him in the future. More importantly, we hope the focus on Rep. Davis' less than ideal record continues to sharpen.

The Drive For 60 In The Senate

It's close enough to the general election that polls can be somewhat descriptive, and if you look at these US Senate seats, there's lots of good news for Democrats.

In Colorado, Rep. Mark Udall has moved to a 6-point lead against the ethically challenged former Rep. Bob Schaffer, last seen touring the Marianas Islands obvlious to the rampant abuse and sexual slavery going on at its factories. The Democratic Congress just tightened controls on the CNMI.

In Alaska, Mark Begich is out in front of Series of Tubes Ted Stevens by five points, with the 50-year Senator well under 50%. The recent ethical scandals that have shown Stevens to be running a favor factory in the Great White North are taking a toll on his re-election chances.

In North Carolina, Liddy Dole is in great danger from a challenge by state Sen. Kay Hagan. The fact that Dole was so crappy at her job at the NRSC that the Republicans lost the Senate in 2006 means that she's not likely to have a lot of friends coming out to raise money for her, either.

In Texas, netroots hero Rick Noriega is very close to beating John "Box Turtle" Cornyn.

And this one blows my mind. In Mississippi - yes, that's right, Mississippi - former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove leads Sen. Roger Wicker by 8 points, 48-40. Wicker gave up his House seat in MS-01 to replace Trent Lott in the Senate. That House seat was taken by Democrat Travis Childers, and now Wicker might lose as well.

Add this to the big leads for Mark Warner in Virginia, Tom Udall in New Mexico and Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire, and the challenges by Jeff Merkley in Oregon (where he won his Senate primary yesterday and Gordon Smith is running scared and pretending to be a bipartisan moderate), Al Franken in Minnesota and Tom Allen in Maine, and longshot races like Scott Kleeb in Nebraska and Jim Slattery in Kansas and Larry LaRocco in Idaho, and you're certainly in the ballpark where 60 Senate seats can be a possibility, especially considering that Republicans are, you know, poison.

Now, I'll have something about the fact that we need better Democrats in addition to more. But for the record, I think Noriega and Begich and Tom Udall and Allen would be great, Franken and Merkley and Mark Udall would be pretty good, and Warner and Shaheen and Hagan are moderates who can get somebody else to give them money.

Whining and Crying Instead of Innovating

Oil prices shot up today on fears of shortages, leading the US Congress to pass the latest in a series of stupid laws regarding our energy future:

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation on Tuesday allowing the Justice Department to sue OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set crude prices, but the White House threatened to veto the measure.

The bill would subject OPEC oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela, to the same antitrust laws that U.S. companies must follow.

The measure passed in a 324-84 vote, a big enough margin to override a presidential veto.

It's a nice election-year "are you with us or are you with the oil companies" vote, but it's the complete opposite track of how we should look at the situation.

A substantial amount of the oil in the world has already been pumped out of the ground. What's left is going to be harder and costlier to reach. It's called peak oil, and nobody wants to talk about it, but in all likelihood we're already there. OPEC would be pretty happy getting $130 a barrel for oil if they had excess capacity to pump. I'm not at all sure they do.

But whether they do or not, trying to lower the price of gas on the margins is insufficient to the problem. Iran says a lot of stuff that's not entirely true, but this is an example of what the next steps could be if we invested in innovation.

Researchers at Isfahan University of Technology have invented a car which consumes only a liter of gas to drive up to 500 kilometers.

“The single-person car is capable of driving at a maximum speed of 75 kilometers per hour,” Alireza Fadaei, supervisor of the manufacturer group announced.

“The car has a 3.5 horsepower carburetor and is equipped with an injection engine,” he added.

“Composite materials with fiber-carbon, which form the body of the car, give it low weight and high strength,” the supervisor of the group claims.

The Iranian car, which is scheduled to be exhibited in France's Low Consuming Exhibit in Nogaro, aims to replace motorcycles.

It could replace cars, too. And we could encourage smarter growth and more mass transit and higher efficiency instead of spending time and effort finding out if OPEC is undercutting you on the price. Guess what - they are. They probably always have been. But that tiny amount of extra cash isn't going to do anything to solve long-term energy needs or fight global warming. The Congress is fighting the last war and trying to save their political skins from angry drivers. But this is useless policy.

Appeasers!

Israel is negotiating with Syria.

After eight years of stalemate and periodic tension, Israel and Syria announced Wednesday that they have launched “serious and continuous” indirect peace talks aimed at ending one of the region’s longest-running disputes.

In identical statements issued from Damascus and Jerusalem, the rival neighbors said that they are taking part in indirect negotiations with Turkish diplomats serving as mediators.

“The two sides stated their intention to conduct these talks in good faith and with an open mind,” according to the statement. “They decided to pursue the dialogue between them in a serious and continuous way, in order to achieve the goal of comprehensive peace.”

If successful, the talks could lead to a broader shift in regional dynamics by returning the Golan Heights to Syria, cutting off critical support for Hezbollah forces in Lebanon, and diminishing the influence of Iran in the region.

Yes, apparently talking to enemies can do all of that. Syria has always been the wild-card in the Middle East, wanting to get out from the shadow of Iran and assert themselves independently, and also rationally believing that the return of the Golan Heights is a satisfactory trade for ending the cycle of violence. Israel doesn't need additional enemies and wants to stop the flow of materials to Hezbollah. So both sides are acting in their own interests to forge a compromise.

That's called diplomacy. And it may be a foreign concept to George Bush and John McCain, but it's certainly not inside Israel, where the range of attitudes about negotiation are far broader than what you would expect if you've been fed on a steady diet of articles from Commentary and Fox News.

There are some Jews who would be made anxious by Mr. Obama even if he changed his first name to Baruch and had his bar mitzvah on Masada. But after speaking with him it struck me that, by the standards of rhetorical correctness maintained by such groups as the Conference of Presidents and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, Mr. Obama is actually more pro-Israel than either Ehud Olmert or Ehud Barak. (To say nothing of John McCain and President George W. Bush, who spoke to the Knesset last week about external threats to Israel’s safety but made no mention of the country’s missteps.)

This is an existentially unhealthy state of affairs. I am not wishing that the next president be hostile to Israel, God forbid. But what Israel needs is an American president who not only helps defend it against the existential threat posed by Iran and Islamic fundamentalism, but helps it to come to grips with the existential threat from within. A pro-Israel president today would be one who prods the Jewish state — publicly, continuously and vociferously — to create conditions on the West Bank that would allow for the birth of a moderate Palestinian state. Most American Jewish leaders are opposed, not without reason, to negotiations with Hamas, but if the moderates aren’t strengthened, Hamas will be the only party left.

And the best way to bring about the birth of a Palestinian state is to reverse — not merely halt, but reverse — the West Bank settlement project. The dismantling of settlements is the one step that would buttress the dwindling band of Palestinian moderates in their struggle against the fundamentalists of Hamas.

The myopia in the neoconservative community when it comes to Israel is so destructive to that nation's survival. A binational Arab-Israeli state is untenable. A moderate Palestinian state in the West Bank is the only viable solution. And ending the settlement project is the only path to peace, along with a negotiated settlement on a two-state solution.

This type of negotiation is treachery in the neocon circles. But the track record for their worldview is grim.

The United States really only has two experiences with a sustained effort at the Bush/McCain approach to diplomacy. One would be our effort to deny recognition to Communist China during the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations. This, it's generally acknowledged, was a strategic fiasco that denied us the opportunity to gain leverage vis-à-vis the Soviet Union [...] The other is our fifty year effort to starve the people of Cuba into rebelling against Fidel Castro. McCain actually defends continuing this policy, but everyone with a functioning brain understands that it's been a ludicrous failure. So that's the path Bush has been taking with Syria and Iran and used to take with North Korea. McCain wants to keep on taking it, put North Korea back under the interdict, and perhaps add Russia to the disfavored list. Like McCain's apparent belief that it would be better if we'd spent another decade or two fighting in Vietnam, it really calls into question whether he has any understanding of what he's talking about.

Of course, it's easier to shout words divorced from their meaning like "appeasement!" and run against Democrats by saying they will ruin society and give in to terrorists. That used to be a decent political strategy, but as a fundamental policy doctrine it's disastrous and the consequences are grave.

P.S. Lebanon's government has made some sort of deal with Hezbollah. More appeasers.

Sometimes It's Accurate

Last night on CNN a Republican consultant stated plainly that sometimes it's OK to call a woman a bitch.



I think there's plenty of racism in American society. I think there's plenty of sexism in American society. I think cultural mores allow us to publicly express the sexism. And that's sad. At the same time, the fact that racism is so pushed into oblivion and mustn't be uttered actually masks its prevalence, too, and gives the false impression that it's an old subject that has been covered and reached a successful conclusion.

This Presidential race is exposing a lot of old wounds in American life, and with the media we're saddled with, the exposure has not been elevating. If and when the next Democratic President is inaugurated in January 2009, many of those wounds aren't going to heal. In fact they'll get worse. There's no magic bullet to make America a racist-free or sexist-free country. But something has to be done about the casual acceptance of sexism in this campaign.

Teddy

I was too brief in my praise for Teddy Kennedy, and as you can see from these quotes there are lots of ways to praise him. But I want to highlight Mike Lux' piece, where he displays the remarkable output by America's greatest living Senator.

I have recently completed my book manuscript on the history of the debate between progressives and conservatives in America, and I have been researching a lot about the congressional debates this country has had in these last 220 years, and I have no doubt that Kennedy should be ranked as the single most important and effective senator in terms of progressive politics. Other senators I would put high on the list- including the great champion of abolition Charles Sumner, the great Progressive era leader Bob LaFollette, Sr., FDR's partner on much of the New Deal era legislation George Norris, and liberal lion Hubert Humphrey- all accomplished great things, but had neither the longevity in the Senate nor the breadth and depth of accomplishments of Ted Kennedy.

Kennedy has been a player in literally every major progressive accomplishment of my life, usually a major player, quite often the leading player: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, Legal Services, the War on Poverty, environmental legislation, OSHA, bringing down Richard Nixon on the Watergate investigations, ending the Vietnam War, stopping military aid to the Contras in Central America, the Martin Luther King holiday, stopping Robert Bork, the increases in the minimum wage, Family and Medical Leave, National Service, Motor Voter Act, S-CHIP. His fingerprints are on all of that legislation, and more.

In the blogosphere we like to look at numbers and votes and margins of victory and how many sets we hold in the House and Senate. The truth is that without leaders like Ted Kennedy, you could have 95 Democrats in the Senate and nothing would get done. He is the man who, through power of intellect and willingness to fight, has brought progressive policy to America and untold benefits to its people.

Over the next few days we'll find out the extent of his ailment and whether he can pull through. But it's unmistakable that a Kennedy loss would be almost as great a factor as an Obama Presidential gain, from the perspective of real change. You need advocates to get the legislation needed to create that change, people with respect and courage. I really want to see Ted Kennedy on that stage in Denver. I want to see him back in the Senate. And the reason is that I believe in a progressive America, and fighting for the causes I believe in. I don't see how we get to where we need to be without Ted Kennedy. We're not yet ready for that torch to be passed to a new generation of leadership.

My Country, My Country

Bob Gates says we're stuck with that Guantanamo prison. Just nothing we can do about it.

Mr Gates told a US Senate hearing: "The brutally frank answer is that we're stuck. We have a serious 'not in my backyard' problem.

"Either their home government won't accept them or we're concerned that the home government will let them loose once we return them home," he said.

"What do you do with that irreducible 70 or 80 who you cannot let loose but will not be charged and will not be sent home?" he asked.

Dianne Feinstein, who has been good on this issue, brushed up against this point, but Gates makes an enormous understatement when he says that those 70 or 80 "will not be charged." He fails to give the reason why, because they've been tortured to obtain information that wouldn't hold up even in their kangaroo courts. Yesterday the Congress heard from a detainee who was tortured and subsequently found to be innocent:

Murat Kurnaz told members of Congress today he was subjected to "water treatment," electric shocks and other abuse during the almost five years he spent in U.S. custody, putting a face to the Justice Department's inspector general report released today, detailing abuses witnessed by FBI agents overseas at detention facilities run by the military and CIA.

Kurnaz, a Turkish citizen, was arrested in Pakistan in late 2001 after the 9/11 attacks while he traveled with a religious tourism group, and was eventually handed over to U.S. forces. He was held in U.S. facilities in Afghanistan and then at Guantanamo Bay.

Speaking to the House Foreign Affairs Committee via video link from Germany with his lawyer at his side, Kurnaz described how he was abused while he was held at a U.S. base in Kandahar, Afghanistan, and described how he was subjected to "water treatment" while in custody.

"They stuck my head into a bucket of water and punched me in the stomach," he said. "I inhaled the water. ... It was a strong punch."

Kurnaz testified that, although he had no links to al Qaeda, and German intelligence services told U.S. officials in 2002 that he was not a terrorist, he languished at Guantanamo until August 2006.

While he was detained in Kandahar, Kurnaz testified, he was chained by his arms to the ceiling with his feet dangling and subjected to electric shocks. Kurnaz also alleges U.S. interrogators tried to force him to sign papers admitting his guilt.

These 70 and 80, whom the Pentagon claims are guilty, received the same treatment. But the claim against sending them to their home countries has always been that they would be tortured or killed by their governments. So we insourced the torture and played buddy-buddy with those new authoritarian partners.

U.S. military personnel at Guantanamo Bay allegedly softened up detainees at the request of Chinese intelligence officials who had come to the island facility to interrogate the men -- or they allowed the Chinese to dole out the treatment themselves, according to claims in a new government report.

Buried in a Department of Justice report released Tuesday are new allegations about a 2002 arrangement between the United States and China, which allowed Chinese intelligence to visit Guantanamo and interrogate Chinese Uighurs held there.

According to the report by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine, an FBI agent reported a detainee belonging to China's ethnic Uighur minority and a Uighur translator told him Uighur detainees were kept awake for long periods, deprived of food and forced to endure cold for hours on end, just prior to questioning by Chinese interrogators.

Susan Manning, a lawyer who represents several Uighurs still held at Guantanamo, said Tuesday the allegations are all too familiar.

U.S. personnel "are engaging in abusive tactics on behalf of the Chinese," she said Tuesday. When Uighur detainees refused to talk to Chinese interrogators in 2002, U.S. military personnel put them in solitary confinement as punishment, she said.

"Why are we doing China's dirty work?" Manning said. "Surely we're better than that."

Surely we're not. We've now become a country with an extra-judicial detention system, one where suspects can be held, tortured, interrogated, and left to die without charges, where the prisoners see the only escape as suicide.

We've now become a country where we aid the Chinese in their own repression of ethnic minority groups.

We've now become a country where all of this is done and our own Secretary of Defense tells us he's very sorry but we can't stop.

If you think one election will wash all this away, you're crazy.

The Lobbyist Chronicles

As I said earlier, McCain opened up a huge can of worms with his year-too-late "lobbying policy," and now there's going to be a consistent drip, drip, drip for six months. Rick Davis, his campaign manager, is a lobbyist. McCain says he's no longer registered as a lobbyist and so it's OK, but continues to lobby while being unregistered, which is worse. And look at the client list:

But while Mr. Davis took a leave from Davis Manafort in 2006, the company has developed a specialty in recent years in a type of lobbying for which firms do not have to register — namely, representing the interests abroad of foreign politicians and businessmen.

In recent years, the company’s clients have included the richest man in Ukraine and a former premier of that country whose opponents were supported by Mr. McCain. The Washington Post reported in January that Mr. Davis also set up a meeting in Switzerland in 2006 between Mr. McCain and a Russian businessman, who has been barred from entering this country, apparently because of accusations about past ties to organized crime in Russia. That businessman, Oleg Deripaska, has denied such links.

This continued even while Davis was employed as McCain's campaign manager.

Also, it turns out that a lobbying firm was paying members of the McCain staff, which amounts to an illegal corporate contribution.

I am writing to express Campaign Money Watch’s concern that the McCain campaign may have violated federal election law when the Loeffler Group, a Washington lobbying firm, made payments to Susan Nelson, the campaign’s national finance director. It is also possible that either Ms. Nelson or the Loeffler Group may have violated lobbying disclosure law. As you know, the Loeffler Group is led by lobbyist Tom Loeffler, the campaign’s National Finance Chair until this past weekend.

We are concerned that the campaign may have received an illegal corporate contribution from Loeffler’s lobbying firm which sent payments to your chief fundraiser on staff.

That’s why we urge the campaign to immediately and publicly release the facts surrounding Ms. Nelson’s simultaneous compensation by your campaign and the Loeffler Group. This information should include how much Ms. Nelson was paid by the Loeffler Group, as well as what work Ms. Nelson conducted for the Loeffler Group while working full-time for the campaign. If the McCain campaign believes that there are no violations of election or lobbying laws, then this information will prove you correct.

All of this could have been avoided if McCain simply passed the bill he sponsored, which would have banned candidates or candidate's campaign committees from paying registered lobbyists. But he didn't, and now the slimy associations will all come out. The one reason to have lobbyists on the campaign is for the purposes of raising money, but even with them McCain lags far behind Obama on that score. It's just a total disaster.

Unclear On The Concept

Apparently esoteric indie rock acts can draw stadium crowds, according to clueless conservatives.

The Portland-based band has drawn rave reviews from Rolling Stone magazine, which gave their 2005 album Picaresque four and a half stars (out of five), and another four and a half stars for 2007's The Crane Wife.

How many of the people showed up to hear Obama, and how many to hear the band?

Gee, when the Decemberists play San Francisco, a city twice the size of Portland and just as much in their demographic, they play the Warfield, which seats about 2,400. But that concert wasn't free! So here's a free Decemberists show from Chicago - a city with 6 times as many people as Portland - and it drew 10,000. Which is pretty incredible for a free summer show for a band with a niche audience (although according to the Chicagoist review lots of people didn't like them and left), but it's kind of 65,000 people less than what happened in Oregon.

Bands get 75,000 people routinely. The Decemberists don't. Oh, and Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard hasn't caught on to the idea of the clever reference:

Hugh also notes that The Decemberists typically open their shows with what I'm sure is a stirring rendition of the Soviet national anthem. No word on whether they opened the Obama rally with such a performance, but I'm certain our trusted media would have reported it if they did.

Ummm, yeah, that'd be why they're called the Decemberists.

Man, conservatives and music don't mix. On the other hand, I'm sure John McCain could pack 'em in if he had the Jiminy MacGillicuddy Old-Timey Jumpin' Jamboree opening for him.

Kentucky/Oregon Thread

A few souls may be seeing hope in the early numbers out of Kentucky, but the vast majority of them are coming out of Jefferson County, which is Louisville, perhaps Obama's only stronghold in the state. So I fully expect the news nets to call the state for Clinton at the top of the hour. However, the fact that Obama's banked 53,000 votes or so already does mean that he may end up doing a bit better than he did in West Virginia.

Oregon does look to already be a victory because the polls aren't measuring likely voters. Since Oregon votes by mail, they're measuring people who have by and large already voted.

...And Clinton is indeed the projected winner. By a "significant margin," well over 20 points. Somehow I think that Clinton's voters didn't turn out in quite the numbers everyone thinks, yet clearly she's going to win.

...This doesn't really belong in the election thread, but I wanted to note that Sen. Robert Byrd endorsed Obama the other day. Robert Byrd, who as our Republican friends never tire of mentioning, was in the KKK, who probably never thought in his life he would have the opportunity to absolve himself of such an error in judgment by endorsing a biracial man for President of the United States. It's a touching tribute to just how different this primary season has been.

But, some of it has been depressingly the same, as we see in the Kentucky results, and county after county in the Hill country going 90-8 for Clinton over Obama. The Appalachia Problem, as well as The Race Chasm, has been a powerful predictor of where we're at in this race. I know Obama largely didn't contest West Virginia or Kentucky, but there's clearly a wall with Appalachian voters that Obama cannot breach. Is that loyalty to Clinton, purely race, or something in between? Not sure.

...Obama's speech here. I didn't see or hear it. I did hear Clinton's speech in the car. Both paid tribute to Ted Kennedy. Obama has been immediately called as the winner in Oregon based on exit polling. So a split decision tonight, as expected. And Oregon being a state Democrats have to win in November, Clinton immediately dropped out upon losing the primary didn't mention it.

A word on the "we won the popular vote" flim-flammery. Both sides have paid well for a cadre of professional liars. These liars are the guys in debate class who were as good defending one side of the argument as they were defending the other. They are expert at manipulating the data to fit the narrative they have to push. Frankly this happens in every political campaign. People are more aware of it nowadays, which is why the Clinton campaign's aggressiveness at pushing these arbitrary markers ends up looking a little less than salutary.

Still, I'm with Obama:

The road here has been long, and that is partly because we’ve traveled it with one of the most formidable candidates to ever run for this office. In her thirty-five years of public service, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has never given up on her fight for the American people, and tonight I congratulate her on her victory in Kentucky. We have had our disagreements during this campaign, but we all admire her courage, her commitment and her perseverance. No matter how this primary ends, Senator Clinton has shattered myths and broken barriers and changed the America in which my daughters and yours will come of age.

Anyone else running on her record and with her stature would actually have been out of this race a long time ago, probably before March. Clinton really has adapted to fit the changing dynamic of the race, and capitalized on Obama's tough April by reinventing herself as a populist fighter when she initially ran as an inevitable establishment Democrat. She may have adapted too late, but it's a testament to her political skills.

Waiting on raw numbers. Clinton won by about 250K votes in Kentucky, but more votes are expected to be cast in Oregon - perhaps over a million. If the victory is significant enough, tonight will be a tie in both the popular vote and the delegate count. And every primary will be done except for Montana and South Dakota and Puerto Rico.

Embarrassing Rhetoric On Iran

I don't know if this Jerusalem Post story about an imminent attack on Iran is true or not. There have been dozens of these kinds of stories. But you cannot deny that Bush and Cheney have certainly been using the kind of rhetoric that presaged war with Iraq with respect to Iran. They certainly SOUND like people who want to attack.

And that's intentional. Because at its root, modern conservatism demands a Manichean view of the world with an enemy of irrepressible evil. If it's not China, it's Iraq, or North Korea, or Libya, or Syria, or Iran. Blustering about the threat posed by Iran, while terrible policy, is considered good politics among conservatives - it scares people, it gives them an enemy to focus on, and it allows them to frame Democrats, or even Republicans who dare to negotiate with enemies, as Chamberlain-like appeasers, despite the wrongheadedness of that approach.

So John McCain is just following in typical conservative footsteps by ratcheting up the fear over Iran. But to do so, he has to actually lie about several things. He first has to pretend that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the leader of Iran. Which he isn't. The Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is the leader. Ahmadinejad is about as much the leader of Iran as the House Majority Whip is the leader of America. And when confronted on this, McCain preferred to wallow in the ignorance of a poorly-informed electorate.

At a press conference yesterday, Time’s Joe Klein pressed McCain on this point. According to Klein, McCain said that Ahmadinejad “represents Iran in international forums like the United Nations,” but then Klein pointed out that “The Supreme Leader is, uh, the Supreme Leader”:

McCain responded that the “average American” thinks Ahmadinejad is the boss. Didn’t get a chance to follow up to that, but I would have asked, “But isn’t it your job to correct those sorts of mistaken impressions on the part of the American public?” Oh well.

McCain also has to lie about the magnitude of the threat that the United States, armed with the most powerful military on the planet, faces from Iran, a medium-sized country with a tiny and nearly non-functional military. McCain has to base this hyping of the threat on a seemingly unending series of hypotheticals that lead in a Rube Goldberg-like fashion to perceive Iran as a threat. But unlike in previous years, we have a Democratic opponent who is willing to actually call b.s. on these ridiculous scenarios, and ask for some perspective.

"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela: these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at a time when they were saying we want to wipe you off the planet. (...) Iran, they spend one one-hundredth of what we spend on the military. I mean, if Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

I know that the wingnut brigade is flipping out about this, but it's obviously true on its face. You can do the math yourself, as hilzoy did, and 30,000 warheads pointed at the US, compared to ZERO, is pretty much a larger threat.

And in the continued back and forth over this quote, Obama has shown how perceptive you can look when you just look at the facts as they are instead of trying to position yourself as "the hawk" or part of the "serious foreign policy elite."

"Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel's existence. It denies the Holocaust," he said. "The reason Iran is so much more powerful than it was a few years ago is because of the Bush-McCain policy of fighting in Iraq and refusing to pursue direct diplomacy with Iran. They're the ones who have not dealt with Iran wisely."

Obama also called Iran the "single biggest beneficiary" of the Iraq war and pledged to secure all loose nuclear materials during first term, if he is elected president.

Obama could have gone ahead and mentioned Ahmad Chalabi's spying for the Iranian government, and how Osama bin Laden is completely opposed to Iran and engaging them could have been a moment to rally cut off Al Qaeda. And later on, he probably will.

This is really shaping up to be one of the big wins early on in the general election. He's fighting back on national security with a great deal of confidence. And he's really coming at the issues from a different angle than we've seen from the Democratic Party.

After the Kerry loss of 2004, Democrats began to vow: we understand what happened. We're not going to let ourselves get outboxed and intimidated next time around, especially on national security. There was every reason in the world to think this was an empty promise. If Hillary Clinton were the nominee, it wouldn't be exactly empty, because the Clinton camp does know how to return fire. But it would be a dissatisfying thing for most Democrats to watch, because Clinton's returns of serve would consist of hawkish statements designed to prove that she could be just as tough as the Republicans (witness her recent promise to "obliterate" Iran).

Obama is doing something altogether different. He is standing for an alternative vision of how America should operate in the world, and he is defending it tooth and nail. I'm not sold on the idea that negotiations without preconditions with hostile powers are the world's best strategy. If the US had some leverage over Iran that might be one thing, but, in our current state, we have little. Still, this is one of those cases where the symbolic message of what Obama did last Friday is more important, for now, than the substance. He said: These people have screwed up foreign policy and security. I have a different way of doing things. And I'm not ceding an inch.

This is a good manifestation of why so many Americans have rallied to Obama as the breath of fresh air the country needs right now.

Indeed. But these aren't even that difficult concepts. Matthew Yglesias has written a book called Heads in the Sand which argues for a new conception of foreign policy outside the current consensus that strength can only mean acting tough, that the only proper pose is some kind of hegemonic hyper-nationalism that advocates for intervention based on strategic interests and simplistic shibboleths (like the "Global War On Terror"). This is a more intelligent foreign policy doctrine, based on common sense and broad diplomatic engagement, both private and public. McCain is invested in the old worldview, Obama is advocating for something new.

Obama Blogger Outreach

I keep hearing that Barack Obama's campaign has had the worst outreach to liberal blogs, and while that was certainly true in the beginning, it has to be acknowledged that it's gotten better. And now here's a lengthy video interview with BlogHer, the first candidate to sit down with this blog focused on women's issues. And he broke news - or at least news to me, advocating for a health-care screening process for every veteran, and health insurance that covers birth control to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Both of these are pretty smart.

I've never been someone who thinks that bloggers... have... the power!!! We're just citizens and we don't deserve the ear of a Presidential nominee any more than another set of citizens. But while focusing on winning the election, Obama is not completely ignoring the meme factory that blogs have become.

I Stir Controversy!

No, actually, I just signed on to a letter to Howard Dean taking a critical look at the state blogger credential selections for the Democratic National Convention. As Matt Stoller notes, some of the selections were unusual, whether in Michigan or New Jersey or New York, and we're just looking for some answers about the process. I don't envy the DNC's job here; you're talking about hundreds of blogs in 50 states and only enough room for one each (maybe that was the problem). But it seems like some more care could have been taken. Marc Ambinder reports on it and prints some of the letter. Here's the whole thing:

Governor Howard Dean
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St., SE
Washington, DC 20003

Monday, May 19, 2008

Governor Dean:

Let us begin by noting our respect for your position at the Democratic National Committee and the reforms you have made. Your efforts to rebuild the Democratic Party in all 50 states has reinvigorated the political debate across the country -- and strengthened not just the party, but our country as well, in the process.

We write to you today out of concern that the same principles that have strengthened our party are today being ignored in the state blog credentialing process for the Democratic National Convention in Denver this summer.

As long-time progressive state bloggers, we have now witnessed many of our well-respected colleagues from crucial states be passed over. In many states, it appears that parochial politics and hurt egos played a role in these decisions. These concerns run counter to our shared goals of using programs like the state blogger pool to "tear down the walls" in Denver -- and better connect the American people with the events on the ground.

The Democratic Party endangers its own long-term viability when it makes fealty a criterion for inclusion. Instead, the Party should act to ensure that it includes its ideological media allies, even if those allies are occasional tactical or strategic critics.

We, the undersigned, have been included in the state credentials pool, despite our own history of criticism of local Democratic actors. This speaks well to the character of our own local parties. But while our peers in other states are being excluded, we'd be remiss in staying silent.

We encourage you to review the selection process undertaken and reasons given by state parties for excluding some of America's most respected state level progressive blogs. We believe a fair and thorough review is necessary to ensure success for this promising experiment in shining a light on the Democratic Convention.

Sincerely,

Charley Blandy, Blue Mass Group (MA)

Robert Cruickshank, Calitics (CA)

Dave Dayen, Calitics (CA)

Lowell Feld, Raising Kaine (VA)

Jon Flack, Tondee's Tavern (GA)

Matt Glazer, Burnt Orange Report (TX)

Steve Hanson, Uppity Wisconsin (WI)

Matt Jerzyk, Rhode Island's Future (RI)

David Kravitz, Blue Mass Group (MA)

Brian Leubitz, Calitics (CA)

Phillip Martin, Burnt Orange Report (TX)

Ryan McLeod, Daily Kingfisher (LA)

Kyle Michaelis, New Nebraska Network (NE)

Karl-Thomas Musselman, Burnt Orange Report (TX)

Bob Neer, Blue Mass Group (MA)

Chad Nodland, North Decoder (ND)

Lucas O'Connor, Calitics (CA)

John Odum, Green Mountain Daily (VT)

Kenneth Quinnell, Florida Progressive Coalition (FL)

Julia Rosen, Calitics (CA)

Matt Singer, Left in the West (MT)

Joe Sonka, BlueGrassRoots (KY)

Jay Stevens, Left in the West (MT)

Jeff Wegerson, Prairie State Blue (IL)

We at Calitics certainly don't shy away from criticizing the state party or national Democrats from California, and the fact that we were included for selection speaks well of the process as it played out here. But it'd be nice to know how that went sideways in some other states. As part of the state blogging network we rise or fall together, and so there was no hesitation at asking for answers about why some of our finest colleagues were shut out from credentialing.

Toward Hopefulness In Iraq?

This incursion into Sadr City appears to have been net with little resistance. And the Basra operation does appear to be improving, with the Iraqi security forces performing well.

I'm not quite as hopeful as Kevin Drum about this; the Sadrist elements may have just melted away just like insurgency elements have dozens of times, and in the long-term multiple problems (like resolving Kirkuk, bringing those armed Sunni groups into the government, Maliki's poor leadership) remain. Indeed, even in this "good news," the Sadrists are claiming that Maliki's forces are breaking the cease-fire, there are ominous warning signs.

But I'm not averse to broadcasting good news from Iraq, and indeed I seek only the best possible outcomes. An Iraqi security force that can sustain itself and carry out missions on its own is key to our eventual exit. However, you have to understand that these operations are intended to take out political rivals to Maliki, as much as they're talking about "thugs" and "criminal elements." I do think that rooting out Sadrists in Basra and Sadr City might make the lives of Iraqi citizens easier, but if the militia members making their lives horrible were allies of Maliki we wouldn't be seeing these actions at all. So it's hard for me to give sanction to one set of suppression as opposed to another.

Let's see where this goes instead of playing armchair generals.

Really Terrible News

Ted Kennedy has a malignant brain tumor. From what I'm reading, this is a very aggressive tumor, and the lifespan isn't really long - maybe 18 months to two years. Kennedy's a fighter, of course, but it's a tough one.

The man is a legend and has devoted his life to liberal causes, and you simply can't say that about many people. The institutional memory of the Senate would be downgraded tremendously. What a blow.

It's very sad.

Bigger Than Jesus Now

There are a lot of people you can use as a comparison point to John McCain - the Cryptkeeper, Gen. Buck Turgidson from Dr. Strangelove, The Great Santini. But other than noting a comparable age, I wouldn't have used Jesus Christ.

Georgia Republican Party chairwoman Sue Everhart said Saturday that the party's presumed presidential nominee has a lot in common with Jesus Christ.

"John McCain is kind of like Jesus Christ on the cross," Everhart said as she began the second day of the state GOP convention. "He never denounced God, either."

Everhart was praising McCain for never denouncing the United States while he was being tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

“I’m not trying to compare John McCain to Jesus Christ, I’m looking at the pain that was there,” she said.

I'm not trying to compare McCain to Christ, I'm just saying he's like Christ on the cross.

What's really mind-blowing about this is that she's saying this in the context of both McCain and Christ being tortured, which of course is a centerpiece of conservative terror-fighting strategy in the Age of Bush.

McCain's Lobbying Problem Goes Mainstream

Ever since John McCain implemented new rules that should have forced him to fire his entire staff, and ended up in him actually firing his convention manager, one of his national finance co-chairs, a regional campaign manager, and a senior aide, there was no way for the press to ignore such a barrage without reporting on it. Not to mention the fact that BarackObama started talking about it as well.

"It appears that John McCain is very much a creature of Washington and one of the things that we've said from the outset of this campaign is that if we're gonna change policies, if we're gonna deliver on universal health care or have an energy policy that over the long term can bring down gas prices that we were gonna have to change how Washington works," Obama told reporters Sunday at an ice cream shop in Milwaukie, Ore. "We can't have special interests dictating what's happening there and that's why I said at the beginning I wouldn't take PAC money and I wouldn't take money from federal lobbyists. And it does appear that over the last several weeks John McCain keeps on having problems with his top advisers being lobbyists, in some cases for foreign governments or other big interests that are doing business in Washington that I don't think represents the kind of change that the American people are looking for."

It's enough of a tie to "old Washington" and the failed policies of the past that McCain's got the least popular President in the history of modern polling coming to raise money for him next week. That alone will dip his poll numbers. But the ubiquity of the lobbyists in his campaign finally breaking out into the open is deadly, because he's carefully cultivated the image of being an independent maverick, and it's being assaulted on all sides.

"It's the biggest anti-Washington streak in the American electorate in decades, and McCain's problem is that his campaign is full of Washington-lobbyist types," said Chris Kofinis, a former John Edwards aide. "You can't be the guy who is striving for reform when the people who run the campaign are fighting against reform."

Democrats have hammered McCain on that very issue for months, noting that campaign manager Rick Davis and senior adviser Charlie Black have spent decades lobbying in Washington. Both have left their companies.

Yes, Davis left the company, but his name's still on the lobbying firm's letterhead, which means they're making money based on his association to McCain. Bad job by the AP there.

McCain isn't going to be able to run from these associations but we're now down to people like Black and Davis who aren't expendable. The information will continue to mount on sites like McCainpedia. And activist online video like this one from Brave New Films will continue to expose the deceptions and undercut the straight talk reform image. And the front-page stories almost write themselves.

Denying Progress On Emissions

Henry Waxman has assembled a litany of evidence detailing the role of the White House in the EPA denial of a waiver to California to implement the landmark tailpipe emissions law under the Clean Air Act. The most intriguing pieces of information are emails between EPA staffers and White House officials, which show how the staff found the waiver routine, and the White House stepped in to block it. Also, EPA Associate Deputy Administrator Jason Burnett admitted in a deposition that the White House was the main player in the negotiations:

According to Mr. Burnett’s deposition testimony, Administrator Johnson’s preference for a full or partial grant of the waiver did not change until after he communicated with the White House. When asked by Committee staff “whether the Administrator communicated with the White House in between his preference to do a partial grant and the ultimate decision” to deny the waiver, Mr. Burnett responded: “I believe the answer is yes.”

California creates the same amount of greenhouse gases as the entire country of Mexico. With the other 17 states that have signaled they would take the option of following the California emission plan added in, you have the emissions equivalent of maybe half a billion to 750,000,000 people on the planet that would be reduced if it weren't for the White House stepping in to stop progress. I believe in state-level innovation as steps to solving the crisis of climate change, but here we have a case where California did everything right, and the White House still held the trump card.

There's a hearing today in the House Oversight Committee, and EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson is planning to testify.

You Don't Mess With The VoteVets

I am kind of dumbfounded with John W. McCain's insistence that the GI Bill only get passed on his terms, with minimal benefits, instead of honoring the service of those he finds so honorable. I don't see the positives behind McCain going into states with large military populations like Virginia and North Carolina and proudly telling them that he cut down on their education benefits. It's not a large expense and it's part of the cost of war. It certainly makes more sense that some Cold War weapons system with a massive cost overrun.

Turns out that McCain has a history of shortchanging veteran's health care.

"Times have changed since McCain needed veterans services so urgently. And for many of those thirty-five years, McCain, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, the candidate who talks the best talk on veterans issues, has demonstrated a tendency to work against veterans' interests, voting time after time against funding and in favor of privatizing services--in other words, of rolling back the VA's improvements by supporting some of the same policies that wrecked Walter Reed.

During a March 2005 Senate budget debate, McCain voted to kill an amendment that would have "increase[d] veterans medical care by $2.8 billion in 2006." That amendment lacked an assured funding stream, but lest one mistake this incident for a maverick's stance against budget-busting, there's more. Just a year later McCain voted against an amendment that would have "increase[d] Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes." Two days after it failed, he voted to kill "an assured stream of funding for veterans' health care that [would] take into account the annual changes in the veterans' population and inflation to be paid for by restoring the pre-2001 top rate for income over $1 million, closing corporate tax loopholes and delaying tax cuts for the wealthy." That amendment died quietly, forty-six to fifty-four.

In September 2006 McCain voted to table an amendment to a Defense appropriations bill that would have prevented the department from contracting out support services at Walter Reed. The amendment was indeed tabled--by a vote of fifty to forty-eight, the sort of margin a true veterans' senator might have been able to flip if he really cared about veterans' healthcare.

Hilzoy has a lot more and comes to the same conclusion by checking through votes from the past several years.

The reason you don't cut people off unless they serve 12 years, as McCain wants to do, is that those who suffer physical or psychological infirmities still deserve the rewards that ought to come with service. The GI Bill is an economic engine, but it's also a moral imperative.

McCain has made a big mistake here. He's raised the ire of VoteVets.

Sen. Barack Obama, McCain's most like