Al Gore, the former Vice President and presidential candidate who won the national popular vote in 2000 has made his first political statement during the bruising presidential primary season.  He is moving on from his global warming victory to fully endorse same-sex marriage rights.  

In a video released on the Current TV network, Gore gives a forceful endorsement of equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians.  

“Gay men and women ought to have the same rights as heterosexual men and women… to make contracts, to have hospital visiting rights, to join together in marriage, and I don’t understand why it is considered by some people to be a threat to heterosexual marriage,” he says on the video.  

I don’t understand why my marriage or anyone else’s would be threatened by it either.  I like this Gore a lot better than Senator Gore, or even Vice President Gore even though I’m not gay.

His endorsement equals that of San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome who openly flouted the federal Defense of Marriage Act signed into law signed by President Clinton by granting marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.  

New York’s Governor Eliot Spitzer is another big name Democrat who supports gay marriage.

Some are beginning to wonder if this statement is intended to push the Democratic establishment closer to the equal rights position or if he is trying to shakeup the presidential primary race with an issue all three leading Democratic candidates are uncomfortable with, given the political influence and activity of the liberal gays.  

Indeed, the leading Democratic presidential candidates have tiptoed up to, but not crossed, the line of support for same-sex marriage. All three support equal substantive rights for gay and lesbians couples, as they’ve sought to woo gay voters without alienating more conservative voters.

Keep in mind, all leading Republican candidates are against gay marriage, not sure about cross-dressing Rudy Giuliani though, and he reportedly lived with a gay couple about 10 years ago.

(Cross-posted at Courage Campaign)

In advance of the state’s Presidential Primary on February 5th and the preceding debate being held in Los Angeles; front-running candidates Sen.’s Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have each sent letters to Long Beach, Los Angeles and Oakland mayors supporting a Clean Trucks Program to improve the environment, economy and port security.

The letters, made available Friday to the Long Beach Press-Telegram addressed to Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums and port authorities in each city, reveal growing national interest in applying some regulations on the trucking industry nearly 28 years after federal law effectively de-regulated motor carriers, which led to wage and benefit declines throughout the industry.

The hotly debated “Clean Trucks” proposal, would restrict marine terminal access to trucking companies with the cleanest fleets and operated by employee drivers.

“If we allow deadly diesel pollution to kill vulnerable residents of our port communities, and stand by while trade-related jobs pay poverty wages, we will have failed as stewards of the American economy,” Clinton writes in a letter dated Dec. 13, 2007.

Obama, who says many port truckers are economically exploited, has introduced federal legislation that closes legal loopholes used by some employers to misclassify their workers as independent contractors.

“Many of these truckers may be legally misclassified,” said Obama, “Workers misclassification is an issue I have worked on at the federal level to remedy because it hurts workers and costs the taxpayer billions in uncollected taxes.”

Currently, most cargo containing valuable merchandise is handled by contract drivers paid by the load and responsible for vehicle ownership, maintenance, fuel, insurance and other costs.

Economic studies show these drivers earn an average $11 per hour after expenses and are financially unable to afford the newer, less-polluting trucks port authorities have mandated must serve the harbor within five years.

The diesel pollution issue first gained widespread attention in the late 1990s, when local air quality regulators identified a “diesel death zone” near port communities attributed to heavy pollution from trucks serving the waterfront.

In December, Long Beach and Los Angeles port officials jointly adopted a program that incrementally bans, by 2012, all diesel trucks not meeting federal 2007 emission standards. The ban begins Oct. 1, when all pre-1989 rigs are barred.

Port authorities in Long Beach and Los Angeles introduced the employee proviso in April, but have delayed implementation in the face of legal threats from retailers, motor carriers and ocean shippers.

Long Beach Harbor Board President Mario Cordero told the Press-Telegram the letters indicate the issue of port trucking, security and the environment have moved beyond local seaports.

“This signifies the national issue that port trucking, the environment and the economic system that created this situation have become,” Cordero said. “And the fact is, other ports across the country are waiting and seeing how we address the issue before they act to solve similar problems.”

Obama and Clinton both indicated they would support the program at the federal level if it were adopted.

“Adopting the Clean Trucks Program will make it possible to ensure that the pollution these trucks are creating and the low compensation truckers receive are reversed,” Obama said. “Both steps are necessary to meet emissions reductions targets and ensure that jobs at our ports are middle class.”

This is more evidence that the Feb. 5th Presidential Primary is elevating local state issues and forcing candidates to cater to them.  

Plus, it may greatly influence port authority decision-makers to do the right thing by cleaning up the air in port communities and doing its part to ensure shippers and retailers are sharing their revenue in the form of good jobs for hard-working Californian truckers who drive our economy.  

(This is going to be a major battle and February is just a few months away, so this is a good rundown of what’s at stake. Full disclosure: I have done some video work for UNITE HERE. – promoted by David Dayen)

If you don’t follow the daily happenings in Sacramento, you can easily be confused about four ballot initiatives slated for the February 5th Presidential Primary Elections.  In four separate propositions, voters will be asked to approve state gaming compacts with four individual tribes looking to expand their casino fortunes. If approved, worker rights will continue to be non-existent at the Las Vegas-styled resorts.

At issue is the lack of basic worker rights that were passed into the California constitution generations ago, but don’t apply at Indian gaming casinos and hotel resorts because of their official sovereignty.  California penal code doesn’t apply in France, nor does it apply at Pechanga’s resort just outside of Palm Springs.

Thus, Indian tribes and the American companies managing their properties don’t have to honor anti-discrimination, sexual harassment or workers’ compensation laws.  Imagine that.

This is only complicated by the fact that nearly 99 percent of employees and management of these resorts are non-Indian, California citizens. 

Seems unusual, but since the tribes are raking in a reported $7 billion a year in revenue with residuals going to tribe members in the form of direct cash payments, college scholarships and the like, members don’t exactly need to work there.

But the Californian citizenry who make up almost their entire workforce are afforded no basic civil rights on the job.

Of course, their jobs wouldn’t exist if the State of California didn’t reach gaming compacts with specific tribes which allow them to operate the gambling cash cows in return for a share of the revenues.

At the end of this year’s legislative session, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez worked their magic to ensure four tribes could increase the number of slot machines at their resorts without limits, paving the way for them to directly rival Las Vegas as the gambling Mecca of the United States.

These new compacts also ended the Hotel worker’s union (UNITE HERE) who represent several Indian gaming casino and hotel resorts long-struggle to earn workers rights at these major employers.  Even under Pete Wilson’s administration, gaming compacts included language that paved the way for unionization and basic civil rights on Indian land. 

But Nunez, a former Los Angeles labor leader lead the effort to approve compacts without basic worker rights.  Apparently, the Indians are such a powerful lobby in Sacramento these days; he was scared they might spend your gambling money against his self-serving effort to expand term limits.

We get to vote on this selfishly written ballot measure in February too.  Personally, I can’t wait to vote no.

His fright is understandable, since the beginning of this year; four individual tribes have been throwing their weight around Sacramento.  Totaling more than $17 million in cold cash; Democrats, Republicans, advocacy groups and others are all feeding at the Indian tribe ready-teller.

Nunez has styled himself as a progressive leader, he did help deliver global warming policies which have made him an international star worthy of the fine living reported in his campaign disclosure forms.  Meanwhile, the typical low-paid worker at the Morongo resort will never live his lifestyle or have protection form workplace injuries or sexual harassment.

If you repudiate this brand of politics, “VOTE NO” on the gaming compact referendum.  Protect workers in California and elsewhere. 

Don’t allow Nunez to continue to claim to be a progressive leader when he leads anti-worker crusades.  Stand up to the Indians money.  It’ll take a lot of standing, because they’ve got a lot of money.  Below you will find what just four tribes have spent between January 1st and the end of September to stop basic worker rights:

Morongo Band of Mission Indians ($5, 172,286)

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation ($657,770)

Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians ($5,880,200)

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians ($5,447,863)

All you have to do is “VOTE NO,” four times.

This weekend, I attended the United Healthcare Workers-West (UHW) Bargaining convention, their a leading union of health care professionals who are embarking on an 08′ campaign to leverage worker organizing, presidential politics and possibly the “netroots” community for systemic health care reform in America. In my neck of the woods, 2008 cannot come fast enough as the federal government is set to pull the plug on the life line of the historic King-Drew County Hospital in Watts, California.

Funding gaps, mismanagement and poor staff training throughout the hospital led to the failing of several reviews over the last three years.

And after failing the final check Friday morning, the emergency room was closed that evening and the remaining departments will flat line in two weeks. What will the underserved communities of South LA do when its residents need emergency care?

I have no answers but I’ll tell you what happened in 1964 before the hospital was built. The largely African American community of South Central LA had to go all the way across the sprawling town to receive basic medical services.

Fast forward to the summer of 1965 when the city erupted in the Watts riots due to the LAPD’s abusive behavior towards the city’s Blacks and the general lack of government services in South Central.

Getting the message, the government listened to community demands and built the county hospital, and named it after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., even before his death. The Charles Drew Medical University was attached years later. For decades, the school has produced the most African American doctors across the country.

Despite non-stop embarrassments at the vital facility, it served as fruitful training ground for the U.S. military who trained many of its own doctors there. Unfortunately, the violent communities served by the hospital were the closest thing to emulating the trauma care needed within the theatre of war.

While King-Drew hospital is a lost cause for now, it underscores the need for systemic change in the nation’s healthcare apparatus.

While many people believe unions only benefit their own members, I got news for you, UHW wants to reform American health care in a very simple way. It believes we must have a single-payer system that you find in the enlightened nations of planet earth.

The netroots may find agreement with this, but it may not understand what organized labor does.

The way to do it.

In short, UHW has a plan to combine organizing, new and current members to win contracts that establish improved standards across the industry including wage and benefits, job training, staffing levels and a voice in the decision-making process at your local health care facility. They understand that they are often the last line of defense to prevent corporations from making profit based decisions about someone’s health care.

It also understands that its members must participate in politics to ensure they can influence the winner take all elections across the nation. In California, all polls show residents want universal health coverage, but deeper research reveals that most voters are white men who have health coverage and are comfortable with the current system, giving HMO lobbyists a great partner in its quest to keep the bad times rolling.

So UHW is directing resources towards changing the voting electorate so that real reform can be possible.

Combine all of this with the 2008 presidential elections and you can create a climate conducive to great change. Until offline communities will continue to tread water through a tidal wave of HMO care and the netroots may continue to harp with no results.

The path is the way, lets do it together.

Elliott Petty is a blogger for couragecampaign.org and this blog is crossposted at openleft.com and Mydd.com