Impeachment Moves Forward

I agree with Chris Bowers that this should have gotten a full floor vote instead, but Rep. Dennis Kucinich's 35 articles of impeachment against George W. Bush was referred to the House Judiciary Committee today, as per the Ohio Congressman's request. Impeachment is absolutely warranted, though as Bowers says, without a compliant Congress we wouldn't have any need for it (which is also why we'll never see it happen):

My basic feeling on impeaching Bush and Cheney is that if we had a Congress that was capable of impeaching and convicting those two, then we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. A Congress that was willing to impeach and convict Bush and Cheney over Iraq would have already stopped the Iraq war. A Congress that was willing to impeach and convict Bush and Cheney over FISA would not have passed a bad FISA bill last August. A Congress that was willing to impeach Bush and Cheney would never have allowed Bush and Cheney to take office, and would have overturned the 2000 election results. A Congress that was willing to impeach Bush and Cheney over signing statements would have, well, impeached Bush and Cheney a long, long time ago. A Congress that was willing to impeach bush and Cheney would have at least conducted more thorough and effective investigations of administration wrongdoing since the start of 2007.

Indeed. But nevertheless, Congress should be on the record about the crimes of the Administration. Robert Wexler is the first colleague of Kucinich's to co-sponsor the bill, and he's a House Judiciary member, and really I hope they keep pushing (Kucinich has vowed to do so). Having someone stand up in the Congress for progressive principles and values is vital, no matter the outcome. some fights are worth waging.

The most interesting thing about the vote was that 24 Republicans joined all Democrats in voting to refer it. This included the usual suspects like Ron Paul and Wayne Gilchrest, but also a number of threatened Republicans who are in tough re-election fights. In California, David Dreier, he of the House leadership, voted to refer. I guess he doesn't want to be seen as such a Bush rubber-stamp after all.

Kucinich Announces Run For Re-Election

That's what his dropping out of the race means. He's in a somewhat tough primary fight in Ohio in March, and needs to go back to his district and work for re-election.

Kucinich was not as important to the debate in 2008 than in 2004. He did little to push the debate to the left; Edwards did the heavy lifting here. And he barely campaigned. He spent more time fighting to get into debates than actually talking to the voters and building the support necessary to get into the debates. And he never used the Internet to any degree to get his ideas validated, in the way that Ron Paul did.

I wish him luck in his re-election campaign.

Hey Obama, It's a Democratic Primary

I seriously don't know what the hell's up with Barack. On policy matters the two most significant issues he's drawn contrast with his rivals is by attacking Social Security and mandated health care from the right. He accused Edwards of being somehow less-holier-than-he by becoming a trial lawyer (that's a bad thing now, apparently; getting paid to fight corporate America and help people isn't noble anymore) and bringing in "outside money," which basically shows a creeping contempt for labor unions.

Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign manager has spent the final days of the Iowa campaign railing against “big interests” that have poured a “flood of Washington money” into the state in “underhanded” efforts to support his rivals.

But more than three-quarters of that money has come from a pillar of the Democratic Party: labor unions.

And top union officials who support Obama’s rivals are in turn accusing the Illinois Democrat, who once sought their endorsements, of trying to damage labor’s political role.

“I’m taken aback that somebody like Obama would think that Oprah Winfrey has a greater right to participate in the political process than the 4 million people I represent,” Edward J. McElroy, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, which has spent $799,619 on New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s behalf, said, referring to the television host’s high-profile support for Obama. “It’s sour grapes. It sounds just like the charges the Republicans make.”

And now he's claiming that Al Gore and John Kerry alienated the country? Dude, conservative attacks on John Kerry and Al Gore led to alienating the country. And if you think your unique special-ness makes you somehow immune, keep dreaming. I think the Republican attack machine can come up with a way to turn a lot of people against the first black Presidential nominee in American history. That's not a reason to not select Obama; the reason, actually, is his attempting to win the Democratic nomination by attacking the Democratic Party.

And somehow, Dennis Kucinich sanctions this, asking his 8 supporters in Iowa to vote for Obama as a second choice. Kucinich has much less support this time around, so this is of dubious importance. But it's clear that whenever somebody tries to run on Kucinich's turf, as a true progressive, he gets indignant and goes in the other direction.

There are rebuttals to this peppered about the blogosphere, but come on. Obama is running against progressive ideas and believes he can make change through the power of his personality. I'd rather not risk it.

If Edwards wins in Iowa by running left and pissing people off, that'll be a good thing for the world. By contrast, while there's a lot I like about Barack Obama, if he wins Iowa it won't have been by running hard on the things I like best about him.

I think Obama's foreign policy team, his open government proposals, and his oratory talent augur strongly in his favor. His instinct to stick a knife in the back of progressives does not. Gimme John Edwards.

UPDATE: And according to the most respected poll in Iowa, Obama's taken the lead, so what the hell do I know.

Ron Paul and the Foreign Policy Disconnect

At the risk of inciting a riot in the comments and eliciting a lot of responses with multiple exclamation points in them, I'm going to write a post about Ron Paul. For some reason, you have to take up sides on Ron Paul to remain a member in good standing in the liberal blogosphere. You either stress only the good side, and love what he brings to the national debate, touching on subjects like imperialism and civil liberties and executive power which ought to get a wider hearing in public, or you stress only the bad side, rightly pointing out his overt racism and anti-Semitism, and believing it was Abe Lincoln's fault that Southern states started seceding from the Union and firing on federal garrisons, etc. Josh Marshall gave a rare balanced take today, which was more concerned with trying to understand the phenomenon.

A while back I was peppered for a few days by emailers pointing me toward an article detailing Paul's alleged history of anti-Israel politics and slurs and goading me to 'disavow' him. I told these good souls that I found it hard to disavow him since I hadn't avowed him in the first place. And the response I got was that it was a matter of all the liberals and Democrats who were on the Ron Paul bandwagon.

But who are these people? The Democrats and liberals who are on the Ron Paul bandwagon?

And this is what I mean: the alternative Ron Paul universe, supporters and critics, all living in a some sort of bubble, alternative reality, in which Paul is a key driver in our national politics, notwithstanding the fact that he barely registers in the polls and does not seem to have moved the needle one notch the GOP nomination contest in terms of shifting the terms of the debate toward his views on foreign policy.

I think it's pretty clear, actually. We're involved in a war with no end in sight, which both parties have had the opportunity to end and have failed. Nobody on either side of the political aisle is speaking with any kind of clarity about ending the Iraq war other than Ron Paul, and about the Washington consensus on foreign policy in general. Dennis Kucinich is to a certain extent, but his effort to ape the Paul money-bomb ended up with maybe a hundred grand or so. Ron Paul has a clear message that is a part of American history, one of isolationism. And he critiques American foreign policy in a way that is never done in public discussion.

That's why his Meet The Press appearance is almost a cultural artifact, an example of how wedded to the institutional narratives and consensus opinions the modern Beltway media has become, and how baffled they are by any differing opinion. Tim Russert was attacking Paul, sometimes giving up all pretense of neutrality, but he did so in his same narrow fashion, and when the subject turned to Paul challenging the core arguments of foreign policy and imperialism, Russert had to ignore them for a lack of knowing what else to do.

MR. RUSSERT: Let's talk about some of the ways you recommend. "I'd start bringing our troops home, not only from the Middle East but from Korea, Japan and Europe and save enough money to slash the deficit."

How much money would that save?

REP. PAUL: To operate our total foreign policy, when you add up everything, there's been a good study on this, it's nearly a trillion dollars a year. So I would think if you brought our troops home, you could save hundreds of billions of dollars. It's, you know, it's six months or one year or two year, but you can start saving immediately by changing the foreign policy and not be the policeman over the world. We should have the foreign policy that George Bush ran on. You know, no nation building, no policing of the world, a humble foreign policy. We don't need to be starting wars. That's my argument.

MR. RUSSERT: How many troops do we have overseas right now?

REP. PAUL: I don't know the exact number, but more than we need. We don't need any.

MR. RUSSERT: It's 572,000. And you'd bring them all home?

REP. PAUL: As quickly as possible. We--they will not serve our interests to be overseas. They get us into trouble. And we can defend this country without troops in Germany, troops in Japan. How do they help our national defense? Doesn't make any sense to me. Troops in Korea since I've been in high school?

He tried to "nail" Paul because he didn't know that exact number of American troops overseas (and by the way, neither would Russert if it wasn't on the TelePrompTer), but by saying it out loud, he almost made Paul's argument for him. What reason is there for over a half-million Americans to patrol the rest of the world, in 140-plus countries? Shouldn't the public have the ability to question the wisdom of that policy? Shouldn't at least someone with the Presidential platform give a dissenting viewpoint?

Matt Stoller had a great post about these "untouchable symptoms" that ought to be up for mainstream debate. Here are two of them that relate to the nexus of the excitement Ron Paul has been generating:

Subject: End American empire
Factoid: As of 1998, America had troops stationed in 144 countries around the world.

There are any number of ways to talk about this issue, from disparities of foreign aid to complaints about the IMF to the war in Iraq to the CIA and blowback. The bottom line is that America has troops everywhere in the world, it's expensive, the way it is done now is a bad idea, and we need to bring them home and return to being a republic. That or we need to figure out how to be a responsible international power again and get rid of the Blackwater-style military we are building and the gunrunning vigilante CIA-style Cold War and post-Cold War nonsense.

Subject: End the war economy:
Factoid: Money for Iraq keeps passing in 'emergency' legislation to avoid being subject to budget rules.

For some reason, Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans argue that they are fiscally responsible while ignoring their votes to spend 700-800B a year on war. Libertarian charlatans like energy expert Amory Lovins think that the corporate sector and the military sector are legitimate parts of the state, but that other spending is wasteful. The whole notion of the military not being a part of the overall government is crazy, and reflective of a huge, corrupt, and Soviet-style misallocation of capital through secret budgets and fear.

Until some progressive takes to a big platform and makes these same arguments in a coherent way, there will always be room for an isolationist paleocon like Ron Paul to make it for them. Yet it can certainly be folded into a progressive foreign policy critique, one that recognizes the virtue of diplomatic relations, one that understands how comforting the afflicted and surging against global poverty is far more effective than sitting men with guns all over the world. Edwards and Obama have done this to an extent, but Ron Paul has opened the Overton Window on this enough for them to be much bolder.

This Ain't No Tea Party

I saw a bunch of the Ron Paul-bots out in Santa Monica (where they threw a bunch of "tea" into the sea, and then retrieved it in an environmentally friendly 21st century manner). This coincided with their Tea Party fundraiser, which netted another $5.5 million today. One of them was in a three-cornered hat and colonial outfit. I have to say that, without having too much interaction with them, the sense I got was that it was a group of young assholes. I'm trying to use that as a technical term, actually; they seemed like the kind of people you talk to about politics but who don't actually know what they're talking about, and their signage ("Freedom! Peace! Platitude!") reflected that, too. They have a new T-shirt with the Ron Paul logo in the fashion of the POW-MIA logo. How is that in any way appropriate?

Let me say this, though; there's a very good reason that these young people have latched on to the Paul movement, beyond the fact that it appears to be more than anything a social group, in the same manner of the Dean movement. The truth is that nobody on any side of the political aisle is speaking with any kind of clarity about ending the Iraq war. Dennis Kucinich is to a certain extent, but his effort to ape the Paul money-bomb ended up with maybe a hundred grand or so (though Kucinich isn't releasing the final numbers, which is telling, because the Paul campaign does it with full and open disclosure). Ron Paul has a clear message that is a part of American history, one of isolationism. And he critiques American foreign policy in a way that is never done in public discussion. It's obviously big enough so that he's getting a Meet The Press shot next Sunday (although his ABC interview was exiled to the Web).

Though his policies domestically I find abhorrent, it's absolutely positive for Paul to be in the race. He's giving voice to a feeling of discontent in a way that I certainly hope the Democratic nominee can co-opt. Unless they decide to "act tough" and be a "national security Democrat".

LIVEBLOG: Global Warming & America's Energy Future Presidential Forum

Greetings from the almost-impossible-to-enter-by-car Wadsworth Theater for a Presidential forum on energy and environmental issues, featuring John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Dennis Kucinich.  All the campaigns had good support out in front of the venue.  I'm here with Hekebolos, thereisnospoon from Daily Kos, RJ Eskow from the Huffington Post, Todd Beeton of MyDD and a couple others in Blogger's Row.  Each candidate will get a half-hour to answer questions on their energy plans.  There's a live webcast starting at 2:00pm PT at the enviro website Grist.

There will be press availability afterwards, possibly with Edwards. (UPDATE: Edwards is confirmed for the press tent, along with Hillary surrogate Carol Browner, the former head of the EPA.)

UPDATE (1:26pm) Just got a pamphlet from the NRDC entitled "Solving Global Warming: It Can Be Done."  Interesting, considering that the latest IPCC report yesterday basically said it can't be done and it's time to adapt to a warmer future.  Wonder if that will come up today.

UPDATE (1:30pm) The event kicks off with welcoming remarks from Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.  Yesterday the LA Planning Commission approved a very ambitious green building plan, which would have a dramatic impact on energy use.

Under the L.A. rules, new buildings with more than 50 units or 50,000 square feet of floor area would be required to meet national standards established by the U.S. Green Building Council, a Washington-based nonprofit organization that is working with cities across the country. The measure is expected to come before the City Council early next year.

The standards -- known as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED -- would reduce the amount of energy used in large developments to well below what is required by California's building code, the strictest in the nation.

Green building is a major part of mitigating the effects of global warming and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

UPDATE (1:42pm) Dante is liveblogging at Daily Kos.

UPDATE (2:02pm) Incidentally, every candidate from both parties was invited to attend this event.  Shows you the commitment on the Republican side to the environment.  Also, our friend Steve Maviglio and his boss Fabian Nuñez decided to attack Obama for not atending (as per a stated policy that he would only do the DNC-sponsored debates in the future).  Boy, if they'd only put that energy to attacking Republicans instead of other Democrats...

UPDATE (2:33pm) Bit of a late start, they'll be getting going in about 15 minutes.

UPDATE (2:42pm) OK, we're getting it going now.  Steve Kirwood from Living On Earth on PRI is speaking.  He's talking about Bangladesh's Katrina, the cyclone that killed over 1,500 people, and the IPCC report released today.  This should be a very substantive forum on the issues.  We're maxing out the ability of the oceans and the forests to handle the carbon dioxide levels.  This is a crucial issue for our future.  Kirwood said, "We invited all of the candidates here today, and we are pleased to have 3.  And we expect to see more later."

UPDATE (2:45pm) Dave Roberts from Grist is speaking now.  Grist is really a go-to site for news and information about the environment.  I try to check it out as much as possible.  Their interview with Ron Paul is priceless.  His position of climate change is basically "people can control the air above their house!"

UPDATE (2:47pm) Roberts gets a huge applause line talking about the "failure of the political media" in talking about this issue.  "Tim Russert has had candidates on MTP 16 times and asked 300 questions, the word climate change has not passed his lips."

UPDATE (2:50pm) Susan Smart from the California League of Conservation Voters touted California's efforts to fight global warming, and now the chair of the LCV, Gene Karpinski, is speaking.  The LCV's goal is to make global warming a priority in the Presidential campaign.  They might want to give Tim Russert a call.

UPDATE (2:51pm) More speakers.  This is a major step back by Gordon Brown in Britain, where he's cutting the climate change department in his government by almost $600 million dollars.  England was the bulwark worldwide for real change on global warming.

UPDATE (2:56pm) A bunch of other speakers went, and now Laurie David (producer on An Inconvenient Truth, environmental activist) is about to speak.  She'll be introducing Antonio Villaraigosa.  David is relating a discussion with James Hansen, who said "we are already guaranteed 2 degrees of warming, and Lord help us if we go beyond that."  Her point is that if scientists, who are extremely cautious, are willing to go that far and talk in such alarmist terms, it's time to be worried.  "Solving global warming can be America's finest moment; continuing to ignore it can be our worst."  She's now introducing Villaraigosa.  I expect him to touch on the green building proposal passed on Thursday.

UPDATE (3:00pm) Will Villaraigosa disclose that he's supporting Hillary?  So far he's praising Laurie David.  He is evenhanded in his praise of the candidates who chose to attend.  "I know the press is focused on Iowa and New Hampshire, but these candidates came West because they know we can't kick these problems down the road."  Talks about the wildfires, the Bay Area oil spill, and our SoCal drought problem.  Mentions how the Bush Administration slashed Julie Gerberding's testimony in the Senate Environment Committee on the public health problem with a warming planet.  "It's time we had somebody in the White House who actually believes in science."

UPDATE (3:04pm) I'm glad that they're giving the candidates a half-hour.  Climate change, as Steve Kirwood just said, is a difficult issue that doesn't play as a soundbite.  This should really be the model for these kinds of forums, not the Wolf Blitzer-fest we saw on display this week.

UPDATE (3:07pm) The panelists are Dave Roberts from Grist, Mary Nichols from the California Air Resources Board, and Steve Kirwood.  Kucinich is being introduced right now.

UPDATE (3:09pm) Kucinich has taken the stage.  "It's great to be at a Presidential forum that's not sponsored by the coal industry, as the last one was."  Good line.

UPDATE (3:10pm) This starts off as a pretty head-in-the-clouds speech by Kucinich.  I like that he's talking about using his own life as a model for sustainable living (his 1,600-foot home, old Ford Focus that gets 30mpg, etc).  Starts with abolishing nuclear weapons (?) and biological and chemical weapons and the landmines treaty.  I guess he's moving into cooperating with international conventions.

UPDATE (3:13pm) This is a "call to conscience" by Kucinich, talking about our interconnectedness and how global warring intersects with global warming.  Now we're getting specifics.  The "Works Green Administration" would involve every government agency. In transportation, that means mass transit.  In housing, incentives for green building and homes that use natural lighting.  In the Dept. of Energy, disincentives for oil, coal and nuclear, incentives for wind and solar microtechnologies.  This is about government as an engine of sustainability.  In health, "imagine a President who stands for a not-for-profit health care system, where we meet the challenge of obesity, which is connected to the kind of diet people have."  In education, educating at an early age.  In commerce, mandating environmental standards by cancelling NAFTA and the WTO.  in Interior, removing the incentives for extracting our natural resources.  And on and on.  This started slow, but is a really good platform.

UPDATE (3:18pm) Kucinich "I would use NASA's brainpower to move America toward a green economy."  An Apollo program for energy is sorely needed.  "I think there's an enormous amount of wealth out there that is waiting to be harnessed if we would only go green."

UPDATE (3:20pm) We move to the question stage.  Kirwood asks "how would you do this," and Kucinich answers that he would go directly to the people and get them behind me to challenge the special interests.  "This government has enormous potential as the government of the people."

UPDATE (3:22pm) Mary Nichols is basically asking about the politics of it.  How do you reverse the dynamic in the Senate?  There's tremendous resistance at the federal level.  Kucinich is giving kind of the same answer.  He thinks that a President who isn't tied to these interest groups is the answer.  That's really not sufficient.  A grassroots movement to reclaim the country is fine, but the legislative process still exists.  "I will go over the heads of Congress to the people."  How?  It's not much of an answer.

UPDATE (3:26pm) This is a better answer.  The global warming fight can be an economic engine for this country.  He explains that you can protect the coal miners at the level of pension and health care while transitioning to a new economy.  There is a need to step outside the status quo.

UPDATE (3:32pm) "The only thing that limits us is our thinking." -Dennis Kucinich.  The speech ends up veering into some other areas, but at root that's his approach.  I like that Steve Kirwood is bringing it back to the practical implementation.  Kucinich is being stubborn about this, and good for him, in a way, but practicalities need to be addressed.

UPDATE (3:34pm) "Clean coal is an oxymoron."  Good to hear a Presidential candidate say that.  And it's a nice turn to say that the price of lost jobs in stopping coal plants, for example, is miniscule compared to the price we'd pay from catastrophic global warming.  Dennis is hitting his stride here.

UPDATE (3:38pm) Kucinich on the moral issue at work here.  The effects of climate change are starting to impact people's lives.  "Resource wars" like Iraq and Iran.  Peace=sustainability.  And all of our trade agreements must include worker's rights, human rights, and environmental quality principles.  Kucinich often offers everybody a pony, but the underpinnings are sound.  "You are the ones who can change it all.  This candidacy offers the profoundest change."

UPDATE (3:42pm) A smattering of boos as Hillary Clinton is introduced.  That's not really right.

UPDATE (3:43pm) Hillary came armed with a speech, and her people provided the press with her detailed energy and climate plan.  It's pretty solid, actually, she waited until the end to deliver it, but it provides some great pieces, including a 100% auction for pollution permits, and a goal of 80% reductions in greenhouse gases by 2050.

UPDATE (3:45pm) A sober yet detailed speech here.  Clinton slams "a President who has dodged, denied and dissembled."  She says that we are more dependent on foreign oil than we were on 9/11.  This is pretty boilerplate, actually.  Clinton says she understands how hard this will be, but she wants to actually talk about implementation.  Her goals, beyond reducing greenhouse gases by 80%, are cutting foreign oil imports by 2/3 by 2030, and creating an efficient green economy which would increase 5 million jobs.

UPDATE (3:49pm) Clinton believes that the case has not yet been made on global warming.  She's really touting California's energy efficiency (our usage has remained stagnant over the last 30 years).  She's asking for everyone to pitch in.  Now she's discussing the cap and trade program she's proposed.  She's calling for a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund, taking the money from oil company subsidies.  All future federal buildings would be carbon neutral.  Renewable energy by 2025.  Green-collar jobs.  The US Treasury will issue energy independence bonds.

UPDATE (3:52pm) Everyone has put forth a good plan on global warming.  Now Clinton is segue-ing into operationalizing it.  She wants to found a National Energy Council so all agencies can talk to one another.  Wants an E8 modeled on the G8 to get the world's largest emitters talking.  This is a good framework that I would hope any Democratic candidate would pick up.

UPDATE (3:55pm) Kirwood asked pretty much the same question as he did Kucinich.  Everyone says they'll tackle climate change.  The question is how.  Clinton pushes back that George W. Bush intended to do anything about global warming.  The difference is that people's awareness is greater.  But didn't she just say that when she talks about global warming on the trail, it falls flat?

UPDATE (3:58pm) Clinton mentions that we're falling behind in global leadership on this issue.  That's true; it's shameful that we created solar energy and yet we're not the global leader in it.  Now Clinton's talking about the movement in the federal energy bill.  We've never had a renewable energy portfolio and increased CAFE standards before.  She'd do as much as possible in the executive seat, but would work with Congress and she thinks it's realizable.

UPDATE (4:01pm) "I would meet every 3 months with the leaders of the most emitting countries." -Hillary Clinton.

UPDATE (4:03pm) I'm surprised at the lack of detail in this forum.  It's all about politics and not policy.  Very meta about how "the forum is significant," but nobody's digging in to the actual details about how to best go about this.

UPDATE (4:04pm) There was some sort of disturbance inside the hall, leading Clinton to snap "Were you invited to speak here today?"  As Vernon Lee sitting next to me remarked, this is a "Don't tase me, bro" waiting to happen.

UPDATE (4:06pm) Hillary launches into a stirring defense of incremental change.  This is really odd.  What happened to the global warming forum?  This whole "we have to stand united from the attacks from the other side" is too candidate-as-pundit for my taste.  How about leading and uniting instead of talking about leading and uniting?

UPDATE (4:08pm) Finally, a policy question.  Dave Roberts is asking about Lieberman-Warner, which is a bill that has little support among environmentalists as an insufficient step.  Clinton says "the bill needs a lot of improvement.  It's not a bill that I would write or that Sen. Boxer would write.  I'm a cosponsor of the Sanders-Boxer bill.  Boxer is trying to improve the bill and create a context where that bill can lay down a marker.  George Bush would likely veto this bill... what is the strongest bill we can get out of committee right now?  I can't tell you what the bill is going to be, so I don't know how to vote.  I don't like the cap and trade without auction and the payouts to polluters.  On the other hand, we have never gotten this far.  If it can get stronger, Boxer thinks it's the right thing to do.  It really comes down to a pragmatic assessment.  Is a bipartisan bill more important?"  There you have it, there's a Clinton Presidency right there.

UPDATE (4:13pm) Clinton's basically hiding behind Boxer on this thing.  She's lashing out at one environmental group running ads against her in Iowa.  There's a touch of "let's unite and line up behind me" to this thing.

UPDATE (4:15pm) Question about foreign policy and climate change.  Clinton's talking about China and India in this context, stressing the power of dialogue and showing countries that we're not trying to slow their development but jump-start it.  The power of listening and not just talking.  Namechecks Gore and the Nobel Peace Prize, he could be used as a spokesperson (vaguely mentions a "position in our government").

UPDATE (4:19pm) Edwards is being introduced.

UPDATE (4:20pm) Edwards: We need a President who won't just deliver a message on climate change to a friendly audience.  I believe that our generation needs to face hard truths.  Adds his theme of "the system is broken" to global warming.  I see politicians who are too afraid of rocking the boat to challenge the status quo.  Oil and gas companies block progress by spending millions.  Mentions the IPCC report and the need for immediate action.  Two weeks from now we'll be sending someone to the climate change conference in Bali with no ideas "it's an embarrassment."  We need to cap greenhouse gas pollution (similar stats to Clinton, he did come out with it earlier, but as I said, everyone's on board in the Democratic Party with good plans).  I believe carbon caps will have an impact on fossil fuels.  The truth is that the big change we need will not be easy.  We need a President that will challenge them to be a part of the solution.

UPDATE (4:26pm) I'm glad that all three candidates have picked up the theme that we are missing out on an economic goldmine if we don't go green.  Edwards devoted a good bit of his speech to it.  Why should there be a headline "Foreign Firms Build Wind Farms in US"?  Pushing the green jobs and entrepreneurship angle is a political winner.  So is using the term "carbon welfare," which Edwards just did.

UPDATE (4:28pm) Edwards uses his signature "It's time for the American people to be asked to be patriotic about something other than war."  He adds to that by citing the examples of our ancestors and the moral tests they faced.  This has become more of a stump speech now.  But there was some solid stuff in there.

UPDATE (4:32pm) Moving into the Q&A segment.  Let me guess: Steve Kirwood is going to ask "How?"...... Bingo!

UPDATE (4:34pm) Edwards is saying that America is hungering to do something.  After Katrina, the government was a mess, but the people took action.  We need a President to echo the JFK speech "Ask not what your country can do for you."  He jibes at Clinton subtly by not that a leader shouldn't be driven by polls.  The government has become corrupt, and we need to be honest about that.  This is pretty much the theme that he's going to live or die with.  That was an extremely strong bit of rhetoric right there, talking about how we can take on the powerful interests that are committed to blocking change.

UPDATE (4:38pm) Another process question.  "How are you going to build change in areas most impacted by the coal economy."  America should not be building more coal-fired power plants.  But we should use some of the cap and trade money to revitalize those communities.  As we make this transition to a green economy, we can work hard to generate new jobs where people are suffering.  This is true, because the jobs can be held pretty much anywhere.

UPDATE (4:41pm) Question on climate change impacting poor and undeveloped nations.  How can we help those countries adversely affected?  Edwards: We're doing nowhere close to what we need to do.  We have to be willing to invest in a way we're not investing today.  Drought-resistant irrigation techniques, walls, drought-resistant crops.  The poorest countries are ALWAYS adversely affected.  We need to be a moral leader on all the big issues, not just global warming.  Edwards spins off into international efforts on education, disease, HIV/AIDS, clean drinking water and sanitation, economic development, etc.  The only way America will be a global leader is that the world needs to see us as a force for good again.

UPDATE (4:47pm) There's a bit more on moral leadership, starting with ending the war, Guantanamo, rendition, secret prisons, warrantless wiretapping, torture, etc.

UPDATE (4:48pm) This debate could have been by three CNN commentators.  Wow.  The lack of specifics in the questioning is pretty astounding.  The candidates are actually doing a pretty good job putting it back on the issues.

UPDATE (4:52pm) "I believe in the progressive agenda." -John Edwards.  We won in November 2006 because we wanted change.  If we have a Presidential candidate that's all about big, transformative change, and we're talking about weeding out the corruption in DC, then we can win big.  This is an electability argument.  An Edwards candidacy would be a tremendous test case on the progressive agenda.

UPDATE (4:54pm) Edwards reiterates that people in the country don't have a full sense about the scope of the climate change problem.  It's really something environmental activists have to come to terms with.  A brief mention on stopping media consolidation led to a cheer in the press room.

UPDATE (5:09pm) OK, I got to ask Robert in Monterey's question to Sen. Edwards about mass transit and the subway to the sea.  He expressed strong support for mass transit as playing a role in his overall policy, and stressed his efforts in the US Senate for railway transit in the Research Triangle in North Carolina.  We wasn't familiar with the Subway to the Sea project.  It was a fairly boilerplate answer, but I'm glad I got mass transit on the radar screen.  Thanks Robert!

Tomorrow - Toward A New Energy Future

As long as we're talking about what we're all doing this weekend, I will be your intrepid reporter tomorrow, live from the Wadsworth Theater in Los Angeles at the Presidential Forum on Global Warming and Our Energy Future, sponsored by the California League of Conservation Voters, the enviro website Grist and PRI's "Living On Earth" radio program. Grist will have a live webcast of the forum tomorrow at 2:00pm PT. You can find it here. I'm expecting to liveblog the event at Calitics as well.

Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich are scheduled to attend, and speak for a half-hour on the environmental and energy proposals they would support as President. The good news is that practically all of our Democratic candidates, even the ones who aren't attending, have put out strong policies on fighting global warming and expanding renewable energy, from Chris Dodd's corporate carbon tax to Bill Richardson's ambitious CAFE standard porposal (50MPG) to Barack Obama's 100% auction for a cap-and-trade system, where polluters would have to buy their carbon credits and not be given them. Clinton and Edwards have also put out bold proposals in this arena, and I'm looking forward to hearing more about them tomorrow.

One thing you all can do TODAY is take action on the imminent federal energy bill. There are three planks that everyone would like to see in it; a federal renewable energy standard that would mandate a healthy percentage of all electricity come from renewables like solar and wind; tax incentives for renewable energy, both for corporations AND for individuals who put solar panels on their house (this would be vital is California is to reach its One Million Solar Roofs Initiative), and a major increase in CAFE standards. I believe that the first two would be signed by the President; he signed similiar legislation as the governor of Texas, and now Texas has MORE wind power than California. Environment California is asking people to email Speaker Pelosi today and ask her to stand strong on the federal energy bill.

UPDATE: This ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is a positive step, requiring the Bush Administration to force SUVs and light trucks to meet the already-meager federal CAFE standards. This would close a loophole the automakers have been using for a while.

How About ACTUALLY Giving Them Hell, Harry

Harry Reid says he opposes Judge Mukasey. He's so committed to seeing America as a nation that renounces torture and extreme executive power that he's set up an online petition so like-minded people can send him a show of support.

Only, Harry Reid can actually see to it that America is a nation that renounces torture by REFUSING TO BRING THE NOMINATION TO THE FLOOR, as the Majority Leader who sets the vote schedule. (UPDATE: And America agrees that waterboarding is torture, so there would be NO meaningful political fallout). This is a familiar Democratic tactic of pretending you have less power than you actually have. The Majority Leader has a host of parliamentary tactics at his disposal to parry the Republicans and ensure that no Mukasey vote goes forward without, say, a vote and signature from the President banning waterboarding by non-military organizations (Gen. Hayden has already apparently banned it as a tactic by the CIA, so this would be for future generations, and really just a small step to restoring the tatters of the Bush years). But Reid will pretend that he can't do such a divisive maneuver, that he must abide by the recommendation of the Judiciary Committee and schedule the vote. So he assumes less and less power, until he just becomes a secretary rather than the leader of the Senate. It's the same with the Iraq funding issue, he could refuse to allow a vote on funding until Bush acquieses.

It's like Democratic leaders need an orientation from Doyle Brunson or some other poker player, so they can understand how to play the game. Reid was actually decent enough in the minority against lightweight Bill Frist; but he has proven himself incapable of effective governance from the majority on far too many issues.

UPDATE: Exhibit B: The sloppy way Dennis Kucinich's privileged resolution on impeaching Fourthbranch was handled on the floor of the House. The guy has a 19% approval rating and has possibly committed multiple crimes. But Steny Hoyer thinks he has no ability to do what the American people ask, or at least move the process forward to get to the truth. but Dennis Kucinich saw a UFO so he's deeply, deeply unserious, not the crew who refuse to stop funding for a failed occupation because people might say mean things about them.

Debate Post-Mortem: Clinton On The Hot Seat

It's distressing that this Presidential election could turn on the nativist, fearmongering issue of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, around which there is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding. I'm one of the many in California who has been in an accident with someone who didn't have insurance (I didn't check papers so I don't know if he was "illegal"). The impact on premiums and basic public safety is severe. The guy smashed me into the sidewalk and about 10 inches away from a light pole. If granting licenses means we can track those who can drive and keep those who can't off the road, then there are social benefits to that.

Senator Clinton initially gave a good answer to this, but when challenged by Chris Dodd, who gave one of those positions that sounds noble but actually is more driven by fear and nativism, she suddenly got an image of a Rudy Giuliani press release shouting "HILLARY HEARTS ILLEGALS" in her head or something, and decided she couldn't endorse the plan fully. So after a couple minutes of saying it was a good idea and defending it, she couldn't endorse it.

Forgive me if I see that as a microcosm of what would happen in a Clinton presidency. She takes a strong position on the issue, then reads the focus groups, or just imagines them, and instead of doing the hard work of educating the public, she stops short and hedges because of perceived political costs. That describes her husband's presidency in many ways, and while it was a hell of a lot better than 8 years of George W. Bush, it's inappropriate for the unique moment we face today. I'd rather go with someone who thinks like this.



Edwards was absolutely right to point out Clinton's answer on the driver's license issue. She spoke on both sides of it in two minutes flat. It's one thing to make an accusation that Clinton uses doubletalk, it's quite another to have it come up in the middle of the debate. Clinton displayed for the viewers exactly what the rest of the field, particularly Edwards and Obama, was saying about her the whole night. That was powerful. And it ought to be the takeaway from this debate.

I thought Clinton was under duress the whole night, but she largely fought it off. She defended her position on Iran - I don't agree with it, but she defended it - and gave some good answers in the middle of the debate. But by ending up on every side of the driver's license issue, she proved Edwards and Obama's point. She came off like a slick politician. And she recalled the worst of the Clinton years instead of the best, as she has been doing throughout the campaign.

It has the chance to be a pivotal moment if the press can get over giggling about how Dennis Kucinich saw a UFO, ignoring the three times he called for impeachment, of course.

UPDATE: This was Edwards' other best moment:

Edwards ... challenged her assertion that she was putting pressure on the administration when she voted for Kyl-Lieberman. "So the way do that was to vote Yes on a resolution that looks like it was written literally by the neocons?" Edwards said in disbelief.

Her answer on Kyl-Lieberman is incoherent, but at least it was an answer. The driver's license thing was a total implosion.

Space Oddity

My senior year of high school, I had an English teacher who taped a poster for an organization called Beyond War to the lectern. Said poster was either a painting or photograph of a globe seen from outer space with a phrase something like "Imagine a World... Beyond War." Because he had a manner that inspired a mildly cult-like following, students eagerly took in this sign of a side interest of his and pestered him to tell them about the poster. He would regularly put them off, saying that One Day he'd tell us about it but not today. Finally, at the end of the year, he cracked open the vault to reveal his participation in this group that some sort of international simultaneous satellite hookup where audiences clustered in auditoriums from Sao Paulo to Moscow would look at the TVs and go "Oooooh!" all at once.

I'm quite certain I've missed the finer details (dimly recalled now; dimly understood then). But I recall the moment in that classroom that this teacher's carefully woven spell had broken. The playful, chortling teases by a teacher who probably hoped to win recruits to this goofy local cult (which I later learned was aligned with a group called Creative Initiative) - for this? Or... wait, say it again? Some paradigm-shifting adult version of LiveAid?

I recalled the woo-woo of this Beyond War hooey as I looked up one of my favorite ever pieces by Markos: a takedown of Dennis Kucinich. Granted, I had formed a dislike of Kucinich without having bothered to actually look up his record or read his positions on the issues. A greater nonentity is scarcely imaginable. But until coming across that kos post, I had no idea how malign some of Kucinich's positions truly are (or - in the case of his anti-choice past - were, before he decided to run for president).

So returning to this post reminded me this time of the Creative Initiative folks. And just because I never could figure out what this teacher was trying to subliminally inculcate in his classes doesn't mean I can't make fun of it. And draw possibly bogus parallels to other ideas I also don't understand.

So on with the fun.

Here's Kucinich describing the new cabinet department he would institute if (everyone else was kidnapped by aliens and) he were elected President: the Department of Peace (which most of us know as the State Department):

We can conceive of peace as not simply the absence of violence but the presence of the capacity for a higher evolution of human awareness, of respect, trust, and integrity. We can conceive of peace as a tool to tap the infinite capabilities of humanity to transform consciousness and conditions that impel or compel violence at a personal, group, or national level toward creating understanding, compassion, and love. We can bring forth new understandings where peace, not war, becomes inevitable. We can move from wars to end all wars to peace to end all wars. Citizens across the United States are now uniting in a great cause to establish a Department of Peace, seeking nothing less than the transformation of our society, to make nonviolence an organizing principle, to make war archaic through creating a paradigm shift in our culture for human development for economic and political justice and for violence control.

Here's an even better one, which I saved for last. An excerpt from Kucinich's keynote address at something called the "Dubrovnik Conference on the Alchemy of Peacebuilding":

Spirit merges with matter to sanctify the universe. Matter transcends to return to spirit. The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self. The energy of the stars becomes us. We become the energy of the stars. Stardust and spirit unite and we begin: One with the universe. Whole and holy. From one source, endless creative energy, bursting forth, kinetic, elemental. We, the earth, air, water and fire-source of nearly fifteen billion years of cosmic spiraling.

Instead of cluttering the debate stage, he needs a show in Vegas. Now that Siegfried? Roy? (whichever one was mauled by the tiger) is out of commission, maybe Dennis could fill in. Picture a dark stage. A single spotlight switches on above, its beam piercing the swirling vapor of the smoke machine. Suddenly a nebbishy, elfin figure appears. The crowd goes wild, wowed with his woo-woo.

[cross-posted at Vernon Lee]

Post-Debate Notes

Watched the Democratic debate from Iowa between bouts of dozing off today. While I do agree with Sen. Obama that there have been simply too many of these, I do find them to be of passing interest, as the candidates sharpen their messages for the fall. This appeared to be a Biden-Richardson debate, with the frontrunners largely in the background (Hillary in particular seemed barely present today, although she's figured out how to answer the lobbyist question. She says "it's a distinction without a difference" and hits the other candidates for taking money from executives who tell lobbyists what to do. Now, it's a completely absurd answer, because she takes cash from executives AND lobbyists, but in the context of a 60-second answer it sounds plausible).

I thought Edwards had a couple nice moments; one where he took the Hillary mantle away from her and said "the differences (on Iraq) between us are small; the differences between us and the Republicans are enormous. The Republican candidates are like George Bush on steroids," for example. Dodd continued to harp on his pet issues to great effect, although his "experience" angle rings hollow. We got some real back and forth on the "no residual forces" issue, with everyone being given a chance to respond, and Richardson still alone in his belief that everyone must go. I wish he was a better carrier of the message, asking firmly "what the hell are 50,000 troops going to do that 160,000 troops can't," but it's good to have this debate out in the open. Which is something Obama gets credit for saying, that the American people have a right to know what their government's foreign policy ideas are rather than hiding them away and leaving it to self-appointed experts.

I also think Gravel serves an important function, and that is to make Dennis Kucinich look reasonable and sane, and the consequences of that are to shift the entire debate more to the left, so I support his inclusion.

Overall Richardson helped himself because the questions were tailored toward his strengths and he never said "I'm a pro-growth Democrat" or some such nonsense.

UPDATE: The debate also had the appalling question "do you think prayer could have stopped Hurricane Katrina," which was seen as so deeply serious that every candidate was given the opportunity to answer it. Edwards and Biden had the courage to say, "Um, no," and Obama attacked it in a good way too, saying that, you know, levees that worked could have stopped the impact of Hurricane Katrina, investing in infrastructure could have stopped a bridge from collapsing, not holding hands in a prayer circle and willing magic into being.

How Very Centrist Of You

I just participated in a discussion with thereisnospoon and hekebolos from Daily Kos about the terms "moderate" and "centrist" and how they played out in yesterday's debate on Meet the Press between Markos Moulitsas and Harold Ford (there's a good writeup of that here). You can listen to the discussion via podcast over at Political Nexus.

I thought Markos did a great job against a fairly stacked deck. David Gregory (sitting in for Tim Russert) framed the debate as an ideological battle between liberals as represented by the blogosphere and centrists as represented by Ford. It was an imprecise way of describing it. Markos himself is pretty moderate, and the opinion on the blogosphere ranges over a whole series of policy stances. There are plenty of "moderate" Democrats, as defined by an ideological stance on policy positions that is in the middle of the extremes on the left and the right, that have earned the support of the blogosphere. "Centrist" is actually a code word that means the type of person determined to preserve the status quo and suck up to the Beltway establishment elites, the Broders and Ignatiuses and Slaughters and Quinns of the world. This "centrism" is more about blurring the lines between the parties completely and arguing for "bipartisan solutions," which really means "shut up all dissent and do what we, your sensible elite overlords, tell you to do." Adversarial democracy demands vigorous debate in public so that a well-informed citizenry can make choices between a range of alternatives. "Centrists" do not want the people to have those choices, and would rather make the choices for them. The debate between the DLC and the blogosphere for the soul of the Democratic Party is not one about liberal versus moderate; it's about inside versus outside, about a few oligarchs versus a panoply of voices.

I also think that this insistence by the elites who rule our discourse for "sensible bipartisan solutions" ends up narrowing the bands of opinion, at least on the left. The belief from these elites is that we live in a fundamentally conservative country where "real Americans" can only be found in the center of the nation, literally and figuratively, and that voices on the far left represent some sort of fringe element instead of the mainstream of America on many issues (health care, getting out of Iraq, etc.). The nutjobs on the right can literally advocate anything and it isn't met with as much fervor, because they are typically arguing for an entrenchment of the status quo. Where anyone argues for REAL change, the elites see them as unserious and silly and unfit for public discourse (see Kucinich, Dennis).

It was a pretty good discussion, go have a listen at Political Nexus.

UPDATE: Thereisnospoon has further thoughts on this here. And yes, Harold Ford did make a real cheap shot calling Daily Kos an anti-Semitic site, then turned around and said he would appear at the NextGen Yearly Kos Convention. Harold Ford: pro anti-Semitic sites! (and to be clear, Daily Kos is most certainly NOT that.)

Yearly Kos: 3-Day Late Debateblogging

Everyone's kind of said what's needed to be said about the Yearly Kos Convention's Presidential Leadership Forum, so I'll confine myself to some quick remarks.

• The format: Less Matt Bai and more Mcjoan would have helped (the questions she didn't ask were excellent. But overall, the candidates appeared looser in front of a live audience that wasn't forced to sit on their hands. The instant feedback was interesting because it forced follow-up questions and justifications. And it was nice to see a debate without the so-called "hot button" (read: meaningless) isues. The "raise your hand" crap still got in there, though; I'll never forgive Wolf Blitzer for entering that into political discourse.

• Richardson: He did better than some of the other debates. People were right to boo his call for a Balanced Budget Amendment, though I guess he cleaned it up in his breakout session by saying it could be suspended in a fiscal emergency, making it more of a "Balanced Budget Suggestion." But right after that, he called for eliminating corporate welfare, which was unexpected for this so-called "pro-business Democrat" to say. He was also very strong on election reform, calling for same-day registration, paper ballots, and an end to voter suppression. And he was adamant about the "no residual forces" in Iraq with a 6-month pullout, citing actual examples of moving that number of troops and equipment in that time. This was a good job.

• Gravel: He actually claimed that his proposal for a "fair tax" on all goods wasn't important because Congress wouldn't enact it anyway. "Vote for me... my priorities aren't possible!" He really is the Get Off My Lawn candidate. Not much else to say.

• Kucinich: His new slogan of "strength through peace" certainly has a point of view that is diametrically opposed to wingnut neoconism. The rest was familiar: single-payer, impeaching Cheney, no additional funding in Iraq. He thought he got a zinger in when asking Edwards not to take money from hedge-fund managers, but considering that Edwards has called for raising their taxes by treating their income as earned and not through investment, I don't get the quid pro quo there.

• Dodd: Chris Dodd now has a more compelling reason to run - protecting the Constitution. Without the Constitution "we're a trade association, and who wants to be President of a trade association?" he said in an interview with Glenn Greenwald. And in the debate, he was very strong on the subject. His first answer sucked, another "I was duped by the Bush Administration" line about Judge Roberts; if you've been duped by Bush, are you to be trusted in the world? But the rest of his performance was execellent. He railed against Rupert Murdoch's purchase of the Wall Street Journal in the context of media consolidation, he defended bloggers against Bill O'Reilly, he stood on principle on Iraq ("I'd rather have 25 votes for something meaningful than 50 votes for something toothless"), and how he would restore the Constitution in a variety of ways (habeas being the most notable). I think he gained the most from the community.

• Obama: He did have pretty much the same tone as other debates, not kicking it up a notch. But he was still very impressive, and when he needed to hit hard, he did. The particular takeaways were on the Clinton lobbyist flap: "Pharmaceutical and health insurance companies spend billions of dollars, they don't do that in the public interest." I think his use of the phrase "We must end the occupation of Iraq" was significant as well, a reframing of the whole exercise. You can't win an occupation the way you can win a war. He said "we believe in two-way fair trade" with respect to China. I believe Obama has progressive principles that he tries to wrap in a universal language. Obama's call to double foreign aid mirrors Edwards' anti-poverty proposals as a means to fight the conditions that create terror.

• Clinton: I agree with Matt Stoller; she really screwed this one up. While I admire her attendance, her depth of knowledge, and her willingness to answer honestly, she really let her slip show with that "lobbyists are people too" comment. That's a little much for this progressive to swallow. And she continued her "safer but not yet safe" garbage, as if taking your shoes off at TSA is an expression of safety. There's a way to answer that now that the 9/11 Commission recommendations have been implemented, but her way is not the way. Until those answers, which were near the end of the debate, she was sailing. But those missteps, combined with blaming Al Gore for the Telecommunications Act in her breakout session, showed the cracks in the armor. Clinton wanted to be booed, I think (she said "I've been waiting for this" the first time she was) but the way she spun the key lobbyist answer was awful. And she's already taking a lot of heat for it. There are optics here, and Clinton is losing the emotional argument by tying herself to big business.

• Edwards: Which brings us to the debate's winner. I didn't appreciate Edwards' canned answers to the first couple questions, which revealed an obvious "people vs. the powerful" pre-written agenda. Love the message, the approach not so much. But Edwards hit hard on the lobbyist issue and I think it will benefit him. When he disavows the unitary executive approach to government in specific terms (close Gitmo, no warrantless wiretapping, no torture); when he says "government belong to you"; when he says "Less allies, more terrorists"; when he calls for universal education as a way to dry up the madrassas in Pakistan and moderate the society; when he decries the rigged system and calls for a grassroots reform movement to effect real change; I am ever more convinced that he is the right man to lead the country. He called for Elizabeth Edwards to be his official White House blogger, too. The lobbyist issue is a real nice way to take a small idea and make it symbolic of the big idea of transformational change. He needs to keep hitting this.

If you want to see crappy debate blogging, by the way, go to Swampland and keep scrolling.

Fourthbranch Gets To Keep His Office

Although it was quite an amusing debate, with one Republican legislator wondering "whether Cheney would get a 'Katrina trailer' in place of his official residence," the bid to take Fourthbranch's office off the executive payroll failed by a vote of 217 to 209. Two Republicans, Ron Paul and Walter Jones, did cross the line to vote against Fourthbranch.

The vote was a bit of political theater. But there is real work to be done in the Congress about how the Vice President has acted outside and above the law from the day he came into office. 36 House Democrats from the Pacific Coast want hearings and investigations into Fourthbranch's imposition into the Klamath Falls dispute, chronicled in Part IV of Bart Gellman and Jo Becker's WaPo series. Fourthbranch basically trumped the science showing that re-routing water to Oregon farmers for irrigation would kill thousands of salmon, and got the Department of the Interior to reverse their decision. Predictably, 68,000 adult salmon died in the largest fish kill in US history, crippling the fishing industry in the Northwest and damaging the ecological balance of the region. House Democrats are angered by Fourthbranch's inserting himself into the policy debate.

“According to today’s article, the Vice President called Sue Ellen Wooldridge, deputy chief of staff to Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton, to pressure her into a policy for the Klamath River Basin that would benefit some farmers, over the protection of federally threatened fish – all to win votes in Oregon,” the letter stated. “His political interference resulted in a 10-year water plan for the Klamath River that has been unanimously ruled ‘arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the Endangered Species Act,’ by three courts.”

“Moreover,” the letter continued, “his action resulted in the largest fish kill in the history of the west. The ramifications of that salmon kill are still felt today, as returns to the Klamath River are so low that commercial, sport and tribal fishing season have been curtailed for the past three years. In fact, last year’s commercial fishing season for all of California and Oregon was cut by over 90 percent, and was the largest commercial fishing closure in the history of the country, causing over $60 million in damages to coastal economies.”

And oversight really is the least of Fourthbranch's worries. Outrage about his manipulation of the levers of governmental power and his acting as something of an imperial figure have led many to join Dennis Kucinich's call for impeachment, including Ronald Reagan's former deputy attorney general:

In grasping and exercising presidential powers, Cheney has dulled political accountability and concocted theories for evading the law and Constitution that would have embarrassed King George III. The most recent invention we know of is the vice president's insistence that an executive order governing the handling of classified information in the executive branch does not reach his office because he also serves as president of the Senate. In other words, the vice president is a unique legislative-executive creature standing above and beyond the Constitution. The House judiciary committee should commence an impeachment inquiry. As Alexander Hamilton advised in the Federalist Papers, an impeachable offense is a political crime against the nation. Cheney's multiple crimes against the Constitution clearly qualify.

Read the whole stinging rebuke. There are three more cosponsors for Kucinich's impeachment bill, which I doubt will get a fair hearing, but in the wake of seeing the near-dictatorial powers Fourthbranch has assumed for himself, I'd say is worth exploring.

Random Debate Thoughts

I think CNN should be credited for holding a substantive discussion of the issues between the Democrats, that occasionally waded into the waters of actually being a debate. Brian Williams should be hanging his head in shame. There was not one bullshit gotcha question about haircuts, tell-all books, middle names, and what have you. Wolf Blitzer takes a lot of abuse from the left, but he should be commended.

Hillary Clinton's strategy is to blur the lines on Iraq. She wants the voters to believe that every Democratic candidate is completely united, and that if that's the case, you might as well pick Brand Clinton, giving that everyone's the same. Edwards and Richardson did try to push back against that, particularly Edwards. But it's clear that's the strategy. I was also, frankly, amazed that Clinton used the phrase "we're safer, but not yet safe" when talking about the threat of terrorism. That's the EXACT same phrasing George Bush used in 2004 to defend his policies. It's insulting to try to fearmonger as well as defend policy in the same way.

Edwards did try to tell a lot of truths tonight. He occasionally got muddled, and sometimes the truth forced him to praise his opponents. But he was more interested in articulating leadership through accountability and honesty.

Obama I thought did very well - though, like Chinese food, I cannot really remember a heck of a lot of it 30 minutes later.

They should play a drinking game with Richardson about what four-word resume epithet he'll start each answer with. "I'm a governor." "I'm from the West." "I've been to Darfur." "I was US ambassdor." It's annoying, and it makes it seem like he's lying to me.

Dodd gave the most concise, most reasoned, most substantive, and best answers out of virtually everyone up there. His answer that the top priority in the first 100 days is to restore Constitutional rights endears him to me greatly.

Joe Biden was forceful on Darfur and it stood out. When Blitzer asked everyone if they supported military action in Darfur everyone started asking for parameters. I am glad that both Clinton and Obama rejected the very premise of hypothetical questions. That's important. Other than that, Biden still buys into right-wing frames about de-funding the troops rather than the war.

I think Kucinich was lucid on all of the issues, didn't veer off into kumbaya territory, and I think it's very important to have him on that stage, to articulate in favor of single-payer and the tragedy of NAFTA, for example.

Gravel is an example of how you should never answer a question in a Presidential debate with "I get my meds from..."

more reasoned stuff later. Good debate.

On The Second Tier

Richardson keeps saying things like he thinks it's wrong to raise taxes, but that he'll take all that Iraq war money that's going overseas and use it for domestic issues. That is a tax raise. The war is off budget, and every supplemental bill just increases the debt. If you're going to use that money, you're endorsing deficit spending. Is that what Richardson really wants to convey, or does he not want people to think about it too much? He's off my list.

Biden didn't care enough to come to California, probably because he knows that the party rank and file know about his vicious sellout to credit card and banking interests on the bankruptcy bill. He's out.

Gravel wants a national sales tax. Apparently this level of inequality isn't enough. He's out.

Kucinich's Department of Peace infringes upon all sorts of other government agencies' jurisdictions and would be a bureaucratic nightmare on par with the Department of Homeland Security. He couldn't run Cleveland, and even if it was because the energy companies outflanked him, I don't want them to be able to outflank a President. No.

Dodd dated Bianca Jagger. He's in. (Plus there's a sweet picture of me with him, which I'll put up when I can get it off my computer.)

...found one...



(me with the dude who dated the girl who bagged Mick Jagger. This makes me a rock star.)

I Can Horse-Race Too

Let me briefly give you my impressions of how the candidates performed at the CDP Convention. I'm going to rank the candidates in order of accomplishment. Let me say first that there wasn't the massive change in the dynamic at this convention, the way there was in 2003 with Howard Dean's "What I Want To Know" speech. Ultimately the weekend did not change the race fundamentally. And because of the lack of regional changes in state polling, I think that California's new presence in the primary election is still outsized. Nevertheless, I suspect this is how it may go around the country, so here goes:

1. Edwards. And this was the only speech that I missed, the only candidate I didn't see the entire convention. But this is a good recap of his speech and its effects on the delegates. There were less people in attendance on Sunday than Saturday, but those who were there got the most specifics, the most progressive policies, and the most truth. He's willing to cross the third rail by admitting that he may have to hike taxes and not focus so insistently on the deficit.

Democratic presidential contender John Edwards said Sunday he would consider raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy to fund programs such as universal health care.

Edwards has long said he wants to repeal the tax cuts on upper-income earners enacted during the Bush presidency, but Sunday he seemed to go further, by saying he was open to raising them higher than they were before George W. Bush took office. He also said he would consider taxes on “excess profits,” including those made by oil companies.

Edwards said it was more important to level with voters than to worry about the political consequences of advocating higher taxes.

“It’s just the truth,” Edwards said during a news conference following his speech to the California Democratic Party convention. “It’s the only way to fund the things that need to be done.”

I think people appreciate honesty after the past 6 years. And they appreciate someone unafraid enough to take a real stand. And I know I appreciate his call to send the President the same emergency supplemental bill over and over again until teh President gets it. He's internalized the entire critique I've been making about how the President is the one defunding the troops by vetoing the bill. Edwards is of course great on health care and poverty as well. Edwards bringing up grassroots supporters to stand behind him on stage, as opposed to Obama and Clinton having electeds there, is symbolically very significant as well. And he privately met with supporters as well, where he affirmed his strong support for clean money. What's not to like? Not much, as so many people on the floor told me that they were converted by his speech.

2. Obama. This is his wheelhouse, giving a high-profile speech and getting a chance to show off his rhetorical talents. He performed to expectations there, even though much of it would have been familiar to anyone who's heard him speak before. Obama was the only one who didn't give a press conference after his speech, which is interesting. And any caucus where he appeared was locked down and closed off. I'm also a little nervous by the fact that his biggest supporter in the state is Steve Westly. I don't mind Westly so much, but I don't want to see his campaign team anywhere near Obama. Sen. Gloria Romero, another supporter, is great, however.

Obama was strong on the war and doesn't have to explain his vote, so as I said before, if 2008 is about Iraq, he has a major leg up. And he offers a new vision of hope to so many young people, many of whom showed up to see him speak and were a major presence inside and outside the convention center.

3. Richardson. I thought he did extremely well in the hall, actually far better than he did in our blogger meeting, where he looked down a lot and failed to really connect. It seemed like he was practicing his speech for us, reeling off a litany of resume stuff and policy proposals. But in the hall, he was more conversational and funny, like when he told the story of telling his mom he was running for President and she said "President of what?" And he hit high notes with his positions on Iraq and immigration. That said, his gaffe in the press room, saying that Whizzer White couldn't have voted on Roe v. Wade because "wasn't he in the 60s? Roe was in the 80s, right," will be a major hurdle in this party. But in the room, people didn't know that.

4. Clinton. I've given my thoughts on her speech, and they stand. Like I said, I think she has more delegate support than everyone believes, but Iraq remains a stumbling block, possibly fatal. And her stance on immigration, that the undocumented should be taken out of the shadows so they can be tracked and watched as potential terrorist subjects, stuck a really bad chord.

5. Kucinich. Had major support in the room. The sing-songy-ness of his speech just was so whacked out; I saw him speak in 2003 and he now seems like a parody of that guy. But he absolutely had the attention of the hard-core progressive crowd, particularly when he focused on his call to impeach the Vice President. However, these are the type of people who tend to scream and yell but don't quite organize as much as other activists.

6. Dodd. Chris Dodd is a serious, experienced, thoughtful lawmaker and I love him. He made a lot of time for us bloggers and he gave a very nice speech. Not that many people saw it, and those that saw it clapped politely. It's unfortunate; he's a good guy who would make a great President.

7. Gravel. He didn't speak on the floor, but at the Chairman's Welcome Reception on Friday night (which had salt-water taffy when I got there and not much else). I ran into a fellow delegate during his speech, a former political science professor and contemporary of Gravel's. He said to me, "I didn't know this guy was still around!"

Enough said.

Incomplete. joe Biden. Didn't show up. Too busy in South Carolina trying to convince them that Delaware was a slave state and that makes him a real-deal Southerner. His booth was pathetic.

Impeachment Returns To The Table?

What's this all about:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), the most liberal of the Democratic presidential candidates in the primary field, declared in a letter sent to his Democratic House colleagues this morning that he plans to file articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney [...]

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach the president, vice president and "all civil Officers of the United States" for "treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Sources tell the Sleuth that in light of the mass killings at Virginia Tech Monday, Kucinich's impeachment plans have been put on hold. There will be no action this week, they say.

Kucinich's office had no comment on the Congressman's "Dear Colleague" letter -- which apparently was drafted over the weekend, before the school massacre -- or on what the focus of articles of impeachment against Cheney would be.

Of course, Cynthia McKinney drafted articles of impeachment the day before she left Congress. I would argue that the way to do this is through the investigations currently being undergone in the Judiciary Commitee, not by leapfrogging the process and going straight to the indictment before "impaneling the grand jury," as it were. But this will set some hearts a-flutter for Kucinich and possibly allow him to get on the teevee and raise more money. I would add that the worst person to put forward such articles is a guy who's running for President.

The "Dear Colleague" letter is very circumspect:

April 17, 2007


Dear Colleague:

This week I intend to introduce Articles of Impeachment with respect to the conduct of Vice President Cheney. Please have your staff contact my office . . . if you would like to receive a confidential copy of the document prior to its introduction in the House.

Sincerely,

/s/

Dennis J. Kucinich

Member of Congress

Hm. My conclusion is that this isn't really a serious proposal. It doesn't have the support of House leadership, I imagine, and is probably the work of Kucinich going it alone. It certainly will stir up those predisposed to convict before seeing the evidence, but really this gets the process backwards. Unless there's some smoking gun in the document that nobody else is aware of. And if there was, you wouldn't hold it off for a week to get maximum value in the news cycle. Trials shouldn't stop because the publicity isn't sufficient.

(Let me say that I personally met Dennis Kucinich in 2003 and liked him, and saw him do something I'd never seen a politician do. We were out on Main Street in Santa Monica, a heavily-trafficked area for the homeless, and a man approached him for money, and he took down his information and told him that he would get him a place to stay for the night. No cameras or reporters were around. It was remarkable.

That was very impressive, but in the intervening four years I see Dennis trying to get in the spotlight more than anything.)