Today, Chase Martyn of the Iow Independent reviewed a major policy speech by Bill Richardson earlier this week on how to improve the welfare of the human race and our environment.  Martyn is no supporter of Richardson, noting “I expected would be ridden with gaffes, pie-in-the-sky policy proposals, and poll-tested mumbo jumbo. Having not seen Richardson stump in person for a period of two months, I had no idea what I was in for.”

Martyn came away highly impressed.  Martyn described Richardson’s speech as “bold and informative.  . . . I dare say he sounded presidential.

In his speech, Richardson set forth  a global agenda to address the welfare of the human race, linking climate change, poverty, international disease and war.  Richardson stated:  “A hungry world will also hunger for scapegoats. A thirsty world will thirst for revenge. A world in crisis will be a world of anger and violence and terrorism.” 

In Iowa this week, Bill Richardson gave a major speech on U.S. foreign policy, setting forth a global agenda to address welfare of the human race.  He noted:

For decades, we believed that the only Apocalyptic threat to human civilization was the possibility of nuclear war.

Now we know better. We know that poverty and overpopulation affect us all. Refugee crises. Pandemic diseases. Climate change. Environmental degradation. Resource Depletion. Ethnic and political instability. These are not just the problems of individual nations. They are the problems of an interdependent world.

These threats are insidious. They may take decades to develop. And they respect no borders. Problems that span time and continents can only be solved through coordinated and cooperative global efforts. 

Time is of the essence Richardson argued:

If we wait ten or twenty or fifty years to address these problems, it will already be too late.  Environmental degradation takes many forms, but the most urgent is global climate change. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that the planet is getting hotter. This is a fact, not a forecast.

The ice caps and glaciers are melting. Sea levels are rising.
300 million human beings live less than fifteen feet above sea level. Unless we act now, homes, villages, cities, and entire nations will be submerged.

Those not displaced by rising waters may go hungry as our unrestrained addiction to fossil fuels threatens both regional and global food shortages. Already severe drought has cut the world’s maize crops by as much as 15%, and wheat supplies will soon be at their lowest level in 26 years.

In a world where hundreds of millions go to bed hungry, major losses in staple crops foretell a time when we wake up to billions starving.  In America … in a nation that has long fed the world…catastrophically rising temperatures threaten to decimate our farmland.

As a world traveler and peace maker, Richardson has a witnessed in person the challenges facing developing nations: 

But we cannot comprehend the crushing burden of global poverty through statistics alone. Even in America, I have walked in communities with no access to clean water. We have all seen shamefully inadequate housing, and we know that even in our own country there are children that go to bed hungry every night.

In my travels abroad, I have seen human desperation — first hand. In the Sudan, I have been to camps filled with families who have lost every worldly possession. I was on the ground in Turkey during a terrible earthquake, where I saw impoverished mothers on their knees, digging through rubble for their lost children.

I’ve spent time in Darfur which today is the best-known example of environmental pressures cascading into instability and violence. A prolonged drought decimated the region’s grazing lands and nomadic herders moved south in search of water and food. They encroached upon farming land that belonged to other tribes, igniting the conflict that now has turned into a genocide.

We urgently need to find the courage and the will to address such crises. Not only because we are a decent and compassionate people, but also because of this inescapable reality: America will never be safe in a world riddled by poverty, desperation, hatred and violence.

A hungry world will also hunger for scapegoats. A thirsty world will thirst for revenge. A world in crisis will be a world of anger and violence and terrorism.

And unless and until we have the wisdom and the skill to secure all the nuclear weapons and fissile material in the world, that terrorism could result in unthinkable death and destruction.

The key points of Richardson’s global plan as summarized in the Des Moines Register are as follows:

• Work through existing United Nations mechanisms to prepare for the possibility that millions of people could be displaced because of global-warming-related flooding of deltas and coastal areas.

• Focus on education in developing nations, where 115 million children do not receive any schooling.

• Institute a nationwide, market-based cap and trade system that reduces carbon emissions in the U.S. by 80 percent by 2040. Make sure China and India develop clean energy.

• Accelerate research into cellulosic ethanol and other low-carbon biofuels and construct distribution networks for retailers.

• Develop cost-effective methods for harvesting fresh water and cleaning up polluted rivers and streams. Protect tropical rain forests and pursue aggressive reforestation programs.

• Fight cross-border crime, end slavery and make progress to eradicate human trafficking.

Specific to the UN, Richardson reaffirmed that the organization is a necessary and important framework to confront international problems.  He called for reforming and invigorating the UN, and he said he understands better than anyone in the presidential race the organization’s shortcomings.  Richardson added he knows the “incredible power” that the legitimacy of international cooperation can lend to peacekeeping, humanitarian relief, addressing climate change and economic development.

In reviewing Richardson’s speech, Chase Martyn of the Iowa Independent wrote:

If there were an award for “most improved presidential candidate” to be awarded in 2008, no one would deserve it more than Gov. Bill Richardson.  The candidate Iowans got to know through a series of satirical TV ads over the summer is no longer kidding around.  On the campaign trail here this week, Richardson left the distinct impression that he means business.

Kicking off his latest campaign swing Thursday, the New Mexico governor gave a speech on global threats, one which I expected would be ridden with gaffes, pie-in-the-sky policy proposals, and poll-tested mumbo jumbo.  Having not seen Richardson stump in person for a period of two months, I had no idea what I was in for.

Richardson’s address, which he delivered using a teleprompter with unexpected precision and rhetorical skill, was bold and informative.  Far from the repetition I have accustomed myself to in these sorts of speeches over the past few months, Richardson showed his true colors as a man devoted to humanitarianism and global citizenship.  I dare say he sounded presidential.

Martyn was not the only one impressed with Richardson’s speech: 

When he finished, the crowd of over 250 in downtown Des Moines gave him a standing ovation, but the format of the event — and the governor’s schedule — did not allow for questions.

Martyn decided to attend a town hall by Richardson that evening to see “if Richardson’s newfound seriousness would translate to his “town hall” style events or if it was merely a product of his teleprompter.”

I expected the torrential downpour that had lasted for much for much of the afternoon to depress turnout, but when I arrived 15 minutes early, the chairs in the “Story County Outdoor Recreation for Everyone” complex were already full.

True to form, Richardson kept his stump speech short, folding new sections of his speech (based on his address earlier in the day) into his standard talking points.  “I’m troubled by the debate within the party on the war,” he said, before launching into a concise explanation of his plan to withdraw all troops from Iraq as soon as possible, because diplomacy will not succeed until our troops are gone.  “I’m not happy with the congress,” he said.  “They haven’t even made a dent” on Iraq policy.

He quickly concluded his remarks and opened the floor for questions, which covered a wide variety of topics.  I had seen Richardson stumble at this point during previous events over the summer, so I was expecting things to get a little shaky.  Again, my expectations were confounded.

He fielded questions on subjects ranging from peace between Israel and the Palestinians to fuel standards, and his answers were coherent and specific.  He displayed an understanding of the complex problems facing the world, emphasizing the gravity of our situation, but he was careful to note that “I’m not trying to be an alarmist.”

. . . By the end of the event, Richardson had answered every question that audience members had, even if the last eight were done in rapid-fire succession.  Onlookers were impressed enough that several filled out supporter cards, and I was impressed enough to eat a slice of humble pie (look at what I have written about Richardson in the past) and write this post.

Five years ago was critical week in the decision by our nation to go to war with Iraq.  While the Senate was debating the war, Edwards gave a well-publicized speech in Washington, D.C. on October  7, 2002, supporting the Bush Administration’s rationale for invading Iraq. 

At the time, Edwards was busy planning his run for President and seeking to position himself as a Southern war hawk.  He failed to read key intelligence reports available only to members of the Senate that cast doubt the Bush Administration’s claims that Saddam possessed WMD and which influenced those that read them to vote against the war. 

Edwards had made up his mind that the U.S. should invade Iraq.  Edwards’ judgment on Iraq was flawed in 2002 and it remains flawed today.  He refuses to commit to the withdrawal of ALL U.S. forces from Iraq by 2010 or even 2013.

Edwards was the darling child of the DLC in 2002.  During the run up to the invasion many Democrats were voicing opinions as strongly in favor of the war as Bush and the neocons. Edwards stated on October 7, 2002, the same day President Bush in a televised address called on Congress to support his objectives for Iraq, that:

My position is very clear. The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. I’m a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that is presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he’s used them in the past, and that he’s doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability.

In February 2003, the Democratic Leadership Council praised Edwards for his views on Iraq and criticized Democrats who advocated continued diplomatic outreach with Iraq through the United Nations: 

Unfortunately, some Democrats are echoing the faulty logic of the French, who say Powell’s presentation just shows the need for more inspections of Iraq. What would be the purpose of those inspections now that continued Iraqi defiance of its “final opportunity” for compliance with the United Nations has been established by the inspectors themselves?

. . .

And Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) said: “I have long argued that Saddam Hussein is a grave threat and that he must be disarmed. Iraq’s behavior during the past few months has done nothing to change my mind. Secretary of State Powell made a powerful case. This is a real challenge for the Security Council to act. Saddam Hussein is on notice.”

Which Democrats were the DLC referring to as using faulty logic?  Richardson, the candidate I’m supporting, was one. 

On March 11, 2003, eight days before President Bush announced the U.S. was at war with Iraq, Richardson criticized the Bush Administration’s rush to war in an interview on CNN.

At the time, most Americans supported going to war and were critical of the U.N. Richardson defended the work of the U.N.  Richardson accurately predicted that a unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq would undermine the U.N. and hurt the prestige of the U.S. abroad:

CROWLEY: I want to ask you the question, first, if there is no Security Council resolution approving of a war on Iraq, and if the Bush administration should go ahead, who loses in that scenario?

RICHARDSON: Well, I think the United Nations loses because it shows a lack of relevance to this crisis.

And, secondly, I think, Candy, that the United States loses because we’re going into a major conflict without the blessing of the U.N. Security Council, without some of our major allies like France and Russia, and also those 10 other members of the Security Council, the 10 non-permanent members that have a voice right now.

So I think it would come at considerable cost especially if we’re to win the war, which we would, issues relating to a post-Iraq configuration to the prestige of the United States worldwide to bring some kind of order to the Middle East and bring some kind of Persian Gulf-lessening attention. So, I think everybody would be a victim. The United Nations, the United States and, certainly, our NATO allies. I think would be hurt, too, because if they don’t support us the breakdown of the NATO alliance might be next to go.

CROWLEY: Well, I want to cite a couple of figures for you. One of them just came from a CBS/New York Times poll, which showed that right now only about 34 percent of Americans believe the U.N. is doing a good job handling this situation.

Fifty eight percent think it’s doing a poor job. On top of that, we also found that 55 percent would support an invasion, even if the Security Council says don’t do it. What does that say about how Americans view the U.N., and has that changed since you were the ambassador?

RICHARDSON: Well, the United States as a populous, here in new Mexico, there’s not much support for the United Nations. But at the same time, Candy, what everyone should understand is the United Nations does a lot of things that we, the U.S. as the only superpower, don’t want to do.

They get involved in conflicts in Kosovo, in the Congo in Africa, in Guatemala and Latin America. Immigration issues, AIDS, refugees. We don’t want to get directly involved in these, but we use the arm of international support, legitimacy of the United Nations to do it.

Now, in the Persian Gulf, conveniently, the U.N. supported our efforts in 1991 to get a broad coalition. And I think we’ve used the U.N. in the war on terrorism to get international support.

But clearly in this Iraq crisis, the U.N. has to step up and simply enforce its [1441] resolution. And it’s not doing that. So, it’s going to be a big loss for the U.N. in terms of its peacekeeping relevance, unless it really steps up and gets tough on Saddam Hussein. I think that’s the issue.

CROWLEY: So, am I right, am I hearing you correctly that you believe that the U.N. Security Council should pass the resolution that Britain and the U.S. are proposing?

RICHARDSON: Well, I would go a little differently, Candy. I think the U.S. and Britain should compromise. That’s the essence of diplomacy. To get nine votes, if it means postponing for 30 days, or 15 days or 10 days, a new resolution with benchmarks on Iraq’s behavior, let’s do it. I think that France and Russia are basically gone.

They are going to veto. But it would be a partial victory if we get nine votes for a victory of a majority in the Security Council. If we don’t do that, I think it’s going to be tremendous prestige loss overseas. I think, domestically, it’s going to cause more problems for the administration. The Congress will be divided. This is a time when it’s frustrating, but what’s the rush, really. Iraq is not heading down Baghdad into the United States.

Again, it is a threat, but it’s not an immediate threat. It’s not something that is like the war on terrorism, where we’re under alert from a potential terrorist attack in this country. So let’s be judicious. Let’s be calm. Let’s be patient.

Edwards is wrong on Iraq today.  Edwards leaves open the door to the U.S. intervention in Iraq for years to come.  Edwards refuses to make any absolute pledge to leave Iraq.  He first has to take office and any withdrawal will depend upon the circumstances. 

When asked at the AARP debate in September in Iowa if he would bring home our troops by 2010, Edwards answer is “it’s impossible to say.”  At the debate in New Hampshire a week later, Edwards response was he couldn’t make a commitment in answer to the question of whether our troops would be out of Iraq by 2013.

With Edwards, his promise to bring our troops home is conditional.  In contrast, with Richardson, it is absolute.

Here is the video clip from the AARP debate: 

Edwards also puts forth another justification for the continued U.S. military intervention in Iraq:  the “embassy argument.”  It is a red herring designed to create confusion and doubt in the minds of anti-war voters that want all of our troops out of Iraq and may be considering supporting Richardson.

Edwards articulated the “embassy argument” recently on Meet The Press:

Under Edwards’ reasoning, the perfect becomes the enemy of the good.  Richardson would withdraw in less than a year 159,000 of our 160,000 troops but somehow his plan is flawed.  We can’t support Richardson’s because we have to have an embassy and with an embassy we have to continue our military intervention in Iraq.

What absurdity.  Edwards wants it both ways – bash Bush for the war but keep sizeable forces in Iraq and not offer any guarantee of a withdrawal.  That way Edwards doesn’t offend the DC political and military establishment by purportedly abandoning Iraq and being weak on terrorism.

Richardson’s view on the embassy is that if we need thousands of troops to defend the embassy then our personnel are not safe and they are coming home and embassy will be closed:  “residual forces — 5,000 to guard an embassy — that means that the embassy is not safe. I would pull the embassy if it is not safe.”

Richardson understands the essential truth about the U.S. intervention in Iraq today:  “Our troops in Iraq are now the biggest obstacle to political change.”

This is where Clinton, Obama and Edwards fall gravely short on Iraq.  They lack this fundamental insight.  While they call for an end to the war in their stump speeches, when directly questioned each refuses to commit to bringing our troops home when they become President.  They say our withdrawal depends upon the situation in Iraq when they become President.  Moreover, they leave open the possibility that our troops will be stationed in Iraq until 2013.

Clinton in particular is playing a “game of dodgeball” on Iraq.  She speaks of the need to “begin to end the war” yet will continue our military mission in Iraq.

If Clinton, Obama and Edwards understood that our troops are unwittingly perpetuating the conflict, they would not keep our troops in Iraq one day longer than necessary for their safe withdrawal. Instead as noted by Helen Thomas they are not providing leadership on the most critical issue of this election, the path out of Iraq:

President Bush has no better friends than the spineless Democratic congressional leadership and the party’s leading presidential candidates when it comes to his failing Iraq policy. These Democrats seem to have forgotten that the American people want U.S. troops out of Iraq, especially since Bush still cannot give a credible reason for attacking Iraq after nearly five years of war.

Last week, at a debate in Hanover, N.H., the leading Democratic presidential candidates sang from the same songbook: Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, along with former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, refused to promise to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2013, at the end of the first term of their hypothetical presidencies. Can you believe it?

When the question was put to Clinton, she reverted to her usual cautious equivocation, saying: “It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting.” Obama dodged, too: “I think it would be irresponsible” to say what he would do as president.  Edwards, on whom hopes were riding to show some independence, replied to the question: “I cannot make that commitment.”

If you want to make an informed choice on whom to support for President and don’t know much about Richardson or have never heard him give a speech, I highly encourage you to watch the video clip below.  It’s from a speech Richardson gave last week.  Likewise if you have doubts about why the U.S. must bring every single troop home from Iraq now, listen to Richardson’s arguments:

To learn about Richardson the person, his upbringing and what events shaped his life, watch a recent ABC news interview or read a summary of the interview.

(This video can’t be good. It’s overly sensationalist, and more than a bit trashy. But still, the underlying question remains at a time when such questions could be disastrous for the term limits initiative. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Steve Lopez takes his whacks today.

“There’s not too big a difference,” Nuñez told Vogel, “between how I live and how most middle-class people live.”

Hands down, it’s the quote of the year.

I’m not sure what middle-class people Nuñez is talking about, but I’m worried that he’s spending entirely too much time with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Could the speaker be talking about Brentwood’s middle-class?

That’s the kind of quote that haunts people throughout their political career.  And Lopez connects it to fears of buying access that should worry all of us, especially in light of the special session.

It’s the democracy we’ve all been waiting for in Sacramento. Gulfstreams, Louis Vuitton office supplies and nose-thumbing responses to inquiring constituents.

Given Nuñez’s refusal to explain the specific purpose of his travels, Carmen Balber of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights is biting her nails, hoping Nuñez wasn’t sampling fine wine with players who have pumped $5.3 million into the “Friends of Fabian Nuñez” campaign kitty.

“The first question that comes to mind is whether the health insurance industry was sponsoring the speaker’s lavish trips, as he’s now debating the future of the health market in California,” Balber said.

She notes that Nuñez’s travel fund has received $136,000 from health insurers and their lobbyists. And Nuñez is working with Schwarzenegger ($719,000 and counting from health insurers and their lobbies) on a health insurance reform bill that would require every Californian to buy coverage, but wouldn’t require insurers to cap the cost.

Certainly the insurers would love to raise a fine bottle of red to the passage of such a bill, and Nuñez has been known to pop the cork on crushed grapes that run as high as $224 a bottle.

I think we have to look at the root causes of something like this. I believe it directly comes out of a static Democratic Party, with its extreme gerrymandering and zealous antipathy to primaries.  Matt Stoller has an incredible post today about the broken market for Democratic primaries, and I think it’s directly relatable to what we’re seeing in California.  On the flip…

Let’s go through why primaries are essential vehicles.

One, primaries create tremendous efficiencies for activists, concerned citizens, and outside groups.  Spending inordinate amounts of time calling and writing Democratic members of Congress or advertising to get their attention, all to get them to do what they should be doing anyway is incredibly costly, and is a direct result of a lack of real political costs to bad faith actions that would be imposed by a healthy series of primary challenges.  The lack of primaries is in effect a tremendous negative feedback loop for activism, dampening all of our focused energy as a piece of insulation does summer heat.

Two, democracy is a core Democratic value.  The right to vote, and have that vote counted, is meaningful because it allows citizens to generate buy-in to their civic structures.  This is as true within a party as it is within a country (and as true within a union, club, corporation, or church).  It’s no accident that the Democratic Party gained tens of thousands of new registrants in 2006 in Connecticut.  Democratic structures make our party and our country stronger, whether that’s by generating Democratic volunteer or donor lists in a hot primary that can be moved over to a general election or letting a festering intraparty fight get resolved by putting it to the voters.

Three, a lack of primaries disenfranchises Democratic voters.  John Tanner, who has not faced a real race in years, or Lynn Woolsey, simply do not have to represent their constituents.  They may choose to do so, but they do not have to.  And their constituents have no recourse.  Their constituents are cut out.  In that case, why be a Democrat?  Why volunteer for Democrats, or donate if the party itself isn’t democratic?

Four, primaries are a check on calcification and corruption within the party.  The only way to keep Congressional representatives responsive to party activists and voters and not corrupted by their control of the party is to have regular mechanisms for feedback by activists and voters.  Joe Biden obviously should be challenged for his Senate seat in 2008, but it’s not likely to happen, and this was true for Tom Carper and Dianne Feinstein in 2006.

All of these are key elements of the situation we’re seeing in California.  It’s hard to keep activism high when the legislature in Sacramento seems like such a closed system, even to rank-and-file legislators.  We have a Big Five and a Little One Hundred And Sixteen, and this is a discouraging development.  There is also no excitement generated by Democrats throughout the state, no opportunities for registering new voters and bringing new ideas to the process.  The legislators have little belief that they can be beaten once they first get elected, so they don’t feel any need to respect the wishes of their constituents.  And the end result is a calcified Democratic Party with a shrinking base, which has ceded much of the inland areas in the state and is concerned primarily with holding on to their fiefdoms.  Plus, the opportunities for corruption and ethical lapses, as we see in this case, are amplified.

This is obviously a drastic reading of what goes on in the state.  We have decent majorities and have passed some praiseworthy policies in recent years.  But the ability to go further and do more is always suppressed, and political power is centralized among a select few.  Just as there is a narrow establishment class in Washington that discourages inter-party debate and primary efforts, the same class exists in California, as the establishment appears to abhor the idea of even growing the majority by competing in “red” areas, let alone taking a hard look at the seats under Democratic control to judge whether there is an effective legislator working to advance our interests and values.  This is not about purging the party and shrinking the tent, this is about saving the party from itself, as they are shrinking their own tent and dampening activism.  The demographics are working for the party in many ways, but also against the party, as job growth moves inland into fast-growing areas like Riverside and Ontario in the south, and districts like CA-11 up north.

We are squandering an opportunity to build a strong legislative majority that can move forward real change by investing power in the hands of an unaccountable few and watching idly as they are tempted by powerful interests to use that power to do little more than protect the status quo.  One of the few ways to change this paradigm is to support any efforts to make strong challenges in the primaries to hold these power brokers accountable.  Another is to take a long look at the effort to entrench power further by changing the term limit law in a way to keep the leadership in charge for another 6-8 years.  Regardless of whether or not you agree with term limits as an abstract concept, you have to ask yourself if it’s advisable to create a situation that would again centralize power, calcify the party leadership and reduce efforts for real change.

(Obviously, meaningful campaign finance reform, which would remove the money barrier to contested primaries, is a great vehicle to kick-start this process.)

Bill Richardson gave an extremely thoughtful speech yesterday at Georgetown University on the responsible path out of Iraq. Richardson also outlined a new foreign policy for the U.S., discussed our relations with Iran and explained need to restructure our armed forces. 

On Iraq, Richardson stated, “If you haven’t seen enough to know that we need to get all the troops out then you aren’t watching the same war that I and the rest of America are seeing. I don’t think just changing the mission is enough — we need to end the war.”

Everyone should watch Richardson’s speech and hear the compelling case he makes for ALL U.S. troops to leave Iraq now.  The video clip follows.

My message is part of the candidate series on MyDD.  I am not a member of Richardson’s campaign.

Richardson understands the essential truth about the U.S. intervention in Iraq today:  “Our troops in Iraq are now the biggest obstacle to political change.”

This is where Clinton, Obama and Edwards fall gravely short on Iraq.  They lack this fundamental insight.  While they call for an end to the war in their stump speeches, when directly questioned each refuses to commit to bringing our troops home when they become President.  They say our withdrawal depends upon the situation in Iraq when they become President.  Moreover, they leave open the possibility that our troops will be stationed in Iraq until 2013.

Clinton in particular is playing a “game of dodgeball” on Iraq.  She speaks of the need to “begin to end the war” yet will continue our military mission in Iraq.

If Clinton, Obama and Edwards understood that our troops are unwittingly perpetuating the conflict, they would not keep our troops in Iraq one day longer than necessary for their safe withdrawal. Instead as noted by Helen Thomas they are not providing leadership on the most critical issue of this election, the path out of Iraq:

President Bush has no better friends than the spineless Democratic congressional leadership and the party’s leading presidential candidates when it comes to his failing Iraq policy. These Democrats seem to have forgotten that the American people want U.S. troops out of Iraq, especially since Bush still cannot give a credible reason for attacking Iraq after nearly five years of war.

Last week, at a debate in Hanover, N.H., the leading Democratic presidential candidates sang from the same songbook: Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, along with former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, refused to promise to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2013, at the end of the first term of their hypothetical presidencies. Can you believe it?

When the question was put to Clinton, she reverted to her usual cautious equivocation, saying: “It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting.” Obama dodged, too: “I think it would be irresponsible” to say what he would do as president.  Edwards, on whom hopes were riding to show some independence, replied to the question: “I cannot make that commitment.”

If you want to make an informed choice on whom to support for President and don’t know much about Richardson or have never heard him give a speech, I highly encourage you to watch the video.  Likewise if you have doubts about why the U.S. must bring every single troop home from Iraq now, listen to Richardson’s arguments:

To learn about Richardson the person, his upbringing and what events shaped his life, watch a recent ABC news interview or read a summary of the interview.

At the Democratic debate in Davenport, Iowa, the most significant exchange to date in the debates occurred.  Judy Woodruff asked the candidates how many U.S. troops would remain in Iraq one year after taking office if elected.

Biden said it depends on how Bush leaves Iraq.  Edwards agreed with Biden, claiming “it’s impossible to say.”  Clinton echoed Biden’s view, vaguely offering “a reasonable and prudent plan” to get our troops out.  Dodd objected to speaking about 2010 and said Congress should not wait that long to act.

Only Richardson provided a direct and unambiguous answer: 

Zero troops! . . .  Without getting our troops out you can not have a political settlement. . . . I would take all of our troops out.  We need to end this war now.

This is part of the candidate series on MyDD.  I am not part of Richardson’s campaign.

Four years ago, Dean was seen as the Democratic nominee and Kerry had run out of money. My point:  in presidential politics, three months is a lifetime.

Today, in the Democratic race there are 2 frontrunners – Clinton and Obama.  They have tremendous national name recognition and vast sums of money.

And there are 2 challengers – Edwards and Richardson.  Both have sufficient funds to compete with Clinton and Obama in the January caucus/primary states.  Edwards, as the immediate past Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, has strong name recognition too. 

Richardson lacks the national name recognition of the other top candidates. Nevertheless, he has distinguished himself in the early voting states.  As noted by Pollster.com, “for other Democratic candidates, we’ve not seen a substantial upturn anywhere. Richardson stands alone in that respect at the moment.” 

Today, only these four candidates have double-digit support in polls in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada.

Last Sunday, in Indianola, Iowa, Senator Tom Harkin held his “Steak Fry,” one of the key events leading up to the Iowa caucuses.  David Yepsen, regarded as the premier political reporter in Iowa, praised Richardson for giving the best speech:

Richardson gave the best overall speech of the day. He was forceful. He was specific. He gave good sound bites. It’s clear the New Mexico governor is getting better on the stump as the campaign wears on. If one of the top three contenders stumbles, Richardson’s in a position to move up.

Yepsen has been noting Richardson has an opening to do well in Iowa’s caucus.  In his August 30 column, Yepsen wrote:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s uptick in the 2008 Democratic presidential campaign was visible here Tuesday night at a town meeting he held at Coe College.  About 200 people showed up on a steamy summer evening to spend close to two hours listening to what he said was the “short version” of his stump speech – it still went 35 minutes – and then posing questions to him.

In Iowa, Richardson has moved from 1 percent support in the state to a middle tier all his own. That’s more movement than any other Democratic candidate has seen this year. . .

Richardson has set the ambitious goal of finishing in the top three contenders in Iowa, which means he has to beat Clinton, Edwards or Obama, a feat that would deal an almost mortal blow to one of them and slingshot him into serious contention.

While that objective is the correct one – no one who has ever finished worse than third in a caucus fight has ever gone on to win a nomination – those are formidable contenders. Moving into their top tier will be harder than moving out of the bottom ranks.

Still, it’s possible. Edwards’ populism sounds increasingly angry, and voters don’t elect angry people to the presidency. Edwards has seen a clear lead in Iowa shrink to a statistical tie with Clinton and Obama.

Also, many Iowa Democrats are worried about Clinton’s electability. She has moved up in Iowa surveys as she debates well and addresses the issue, but the question hasn’t gone away and remains her single biggest impediment to the nomination.

Obama is vexed by questions about his lack of experience. He also has upset some Democratic constituency groups by blowing off a number of Iowa events and debates because he doesn’t want to be seen with his rivals. . . .

All of which gives Richardson an opening. A growing number of activists believe he puts together an impressive package. He notes in his stump speech that Clinton talks about experience, and Obama talks about change, “and with me you get both.”

A large part of Richardson’s success in the early states can be attributed to his crystal clear plan on the number one issue in the campaign, the Iraq war. 

John Nichols of The Nation, in an article entitled “The Richardson Surge,” observed Richardson is clicking with voters because he emphatically calls for the removal of every single soldier – both combat and support troops – from Iraq:

Against a field of first-tier candidates (Clinton, Obama and John Edwards) who don’t mind savaging the Bush Administration’s management of the Iraq imbroglio but who regularly fall short of proposing clear exit strategies, Richardson offers not just a résumé but specifics–and a sense of urgency. His TV ads in the early caucus and primary states identify him as the candidate with “the only plan that pulls every single soldier out of Iraq.” As the contender with the most international experience–save, perhaps, hapless Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Joe Biden–Richardson says it is not merely possible but necessary to end the US military presence in Iraq and to replace it with diplomacy and targeted aid initiatives. Rejecting all the dodges of the frontrunners, Richardson argues, “If we are going to get out, we need to do it now.”

Richardson understands that by the U.S. remaining in Iraq, we unwittingly perpetuate the war.  Our troops have become the targets in a civil war.  The Iraqi government, in turn, is dependent on the U.S. for security that the Iraqis themselves should provide.  Richardson notes: “The Iraqis won’t take the necessary steps toward political reconciliation until the U.S. makes it clear that it will leave the country for good.”

In an interview with the Associated Press this week, Richardson explained: 

all combat and non-combat troops should be removed from Iraq because their presence is only contributing to violence instead of bringing security.

“There’s no question there’s tribal and ethnic hatreds,” Richardson told The Associated Press. “But when those tribal and ethnic hatreds are fueled by American policy of hostility, then you make the situation worse.”

Richardson criticized Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards – his leading rivals for the presidential nomination – for plans to pull out combat troops from Iraq but leave residual forces behind. He said he would keep the Marines that guard the U.S. embassy in Baghdad but would withdraw all other military personnel.

“Who is going to take care of non-combat troops? The Iraqis?” Richardson asked. He said he would move a small contingent mostly of special forces to Kuwait and more troops into Afghanistan, although he would leave the specific number up to military leaders.

Last night at the Democratic debate in Davenport, Iowa, Judy Woodruff asked the candidates if they were elected how many U.S. troops would remain in Iraq after their first year in office.

Biden said it depends on how Bush leaves Iraq.  Edwards agreed with Biden, claiming “it’s impossible to say.”  Clinton echoed Biden’s view, vaguely offering “a reasonable and prudent plan” to get our troops out.  Dodd objected to speaking about 2010 and said Congress should not wait that long to act.

Only Richardson provided a direct and unambiguous answer: 

Zero troops! . . .  Without getting our troops out you can not have a political settlement. . . . I would take all of our troops out.  We need to end this war now.

Here is the video of the most significant exchange to date in the debates among the candidates in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination:

Obama chose not to attend the debate and instead conducted a fund raiser in Atlanta, making two huge mistakes in one day.  Earlier, Obama failed to vote against the Republican resolution condemning MoveOn for its newspaper ad attacking Gen. David Petraeus.

Debate Schedule

August 19, 2007 – Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa  (ABC) 8PM
August 27-28, 2007 – Cancer Forum, Cedar Rapids, IA (MSNBC & Live Streaming)
September 26, 2007 – Hanover, New Hampshire
October 30, 2007 – Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
November 15, 2007 – Las Vegas, Nevada
December 10, 2007 – Los Angeles, California
January 6, 2008 – Johnson County, Iowa
January 15, 2008 – Las Vegas, Nevada
January 31, 2008 – California

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly….

he’s only human, guys….let’s go….

Obama Appearances

August 12, 2007 – Michelle Obama, Chicago, IL
August 13, 2007 – Keene, NH
August 13, 2007 – Nashua, NH
August 15, 2007 – Cedar Falls, IA
August 16, 2007 – Council Bluffs, IA
August 16, 2007 – Atlantic, IA
August 17, 2007 – Clear Lake, IA
August 18, 2007 – Waverly, IA
August 22, 2007 – KICKOFF, Brooklyn, NY
August 24, 2007 – KICKOFF, Tallahassee, FL
August 26, 2007 – KICKOFF, Lexington, KY

Well, I am back with the weekly roundup.  I took the week off, due to being at the Yearly Kos Convention in Chicago.  I thought I “might” be able to provide last week’s roundup, but was tired, drained, and reflective of the events when I got home.  So, I posted a diary about my reflections of the convention, instead.  All I have to say is, GO NEXT YEAR, start saving your pennies, NOW.  Next year is critical, it is the year of the presidential election, but more importantly we must work hard to get more democrats in the congress, in our state houses and state races.  Yes, we were fired up this year, but next year the flame is ON!!

August 5, 2007
 
  Thanks, lovingj!!!!

Senator Obama was in Park City, Utah for a fundraiser, but held an impromptu rally of over 500 and expected just a small number, at Utah Olympic Park.  Kudos to the Obama Campaign for getting this together on the “fly”, and just look at the people grateful to see him.

Obama was next in Elko, Nevada, the senator’s first trip to rural Nevada.  Attending a townhall type meeting of 900, Obama again, backed up his statements about Pakistan.  And the crowd loved it:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Sunday stood by foreign policy comments that sparked an anti-U.S. protest in Pakistan and attacks from his opponents this week.

Obama told a group in Elko, Nevada that he didn’t think he’d made a mistake in suggesting that he would use military force in Pakistan if necessary to root out terrorists.

Pakistan has been considered a U.S. ally in the war on terrorism.

Obama also sought to clarify his assertion, prompted by a reporter’s question, that nuclear weapons would be “off the table” in such an attack.

Senator Hillary Clinton criticized him by saying leaders should not discuss hypotheticals involving nuclear weapons. Obama portrayed the question and Clinton’s critique as absurd.  more, My Silver State

The ongoing “flux” with Senator Clinton’s answer about lobbyists, their monies, “our friends”, “don’t influence”, me answers from Yearly Kos.  And the stepping up of ousting Clinton by Obama and Edwards.

…”A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans,” the New York senator said. “They represent nurses, they represent social workers, yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people…I don’t think, based on my 35 years of fighting for what I believe in, I don’t think anybody seriously believes I’m going to be influenced by a lobbyist.”

A less hypocritical answer to the question might have looked something like this: “Yes, I am taking lobbyists’ donations and I too am concerned about the disproportionate influence wealthy interest groups have on the political process. I have often had to compromise my beliefs for lobbyist cash and that troubles me as a Senator, as a citizen, as a human being. And that’s why we desperately need to switch over to a public campaign finance system. But with the system we have, in order to win, I need to take their money. If I elected, I will do my utmost to enact a public campaign finance system.”

But Clinton seems to be in denial about the power of campaign cash even though, as a matter of historical record, she has flip-flopped like a trained marine mammal at Sea World for major contributors. For example, as First Lady, Hillary Clinton convinced her husband to veto a credit card company-backed bill to make it harder for Americans to declare bankruptcy. Inspired by Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren’s speech about the devastating impact the legislation would have on single mothers and their children, Hillary informally lobbied the president on what she termed “that awful bill.” Yet a few years later, Hillary, now in the Senate with the help of copious contributions from the credit card companies, voted for the same bill. “The financial services industry is a big industry in New York, and it’s powerful on Capitol Hill,” Warren later explained. “It’s a [testament to] how much influence this industry group wields in Washington that…they can bring to heel a senator who obviously cares, who obviously gets it, but who also obviously really feels the pressure in having to stand up to an industry like that.”

So please, Hillary, let’s not pretend that Washington lobbyists defend the interests of social workers — or single mothers — and that their contributions don’t affect your positions anyway. The power of entrenched wealth perverts the political process and turns politicians–even those whose hearts are in the right place, as Hillary’s often is — into paid corporate spokespeople.  more

Obama is criticizing Clinton over her “lobbyist snafu” and the criticism is warranted.  Americans need to have their eyes wide open about these candidates.  We must select the right candidate who is supporting us, not the corporations who are the largest recipients of corporate welfare in the history of this government.  Those are the real welfare “kings and queens”, and not the people.

…In an interview with The Associated Press and later at a town hall-style event, Obama said the matter would be a critical issue in his campaign for the party nomination.

Obama pointed to Saturday’s bloggers forum in Chicago where he touted his promise not to take money from lobbyists. Clinton argued at the event that taking money from lobbyists was acceptable because they represented real people and real interests.

Obama declined to use Clinton’s name, though he told the AP, “I profoundly disagree with her statements.”

“If lobbyists for well-heeled interests in Washington are setting the agenda on the farm bill, in the energy bill, on health care legislation and if we can’t overcome the power of those lobbyists then we’re not going to get serious reform in any of those areas,” he said. “That doesn’t mean they don’t have a seat at the table. We just don’t want them buying every chair.”  more, KC Star, Ari Melber, Newsday, Politico

 
Al Sharpton on Barack Obama
Obama a Working Birthday
Obama to be on the Daily Show
Michelle Obama

August 6, 2007

Barack Obama has been in the hotseat for his position on Pakistan, but many are coming around and agreeing on his position,  Atlanta Constitution Journal, Washington Post, to name a few.  Now the pundits are talking and discussing the “same policy” as Obama.  Relevant it was on ABC, for the Republican Debate in Iowa on Sunday Morning, when Giulilani was pressed and “quoted verbatim” of agreeing with Obama’s stance on Pakistan, Giuliani, squirmed the question away.

So, while Obama may have gotten folks upset, as they grilled him in Iowa, the fact of the matter is that Osama bin Laden is still running amuck.  He is being harbored in PAKISTAN, the United States know it, Musharraf knows it, and the man should be caught or killed, period.  You can not play two sides of the fence on this.  And for those afraid of Pakistan retailiating, they won’t.  We have harbored and aided Musharref for too long.  He can “publicly” denounce the United States, but he will play politically and hand this man over. Why?  He is in a hot seat, as well.  While re-emphasizing, strongly, that Pakistan is not harboring or aiding al-Qaida.

The Republicans are on their last gasp of breath coming into 2008, they know it, but more importantly, we know it.  For any kind of public ratification of this party, they must get Osama bin Laden, in hope of regaining public trust and retaining the White House.  Clear and simple.  So clear, that this should have been done in the beginning, or we would not be in Iraq.  But of course, Iraq is all about lining corporate purses, period.  Isn’t it?

Obama’s Camp is reassuring its base that the national numbers are not important.  And realistically, these nubmers are not.  Not this far out.  This all comes about from the Clinton Camp releasing another “inevitablity poll number memo”.  David Plouffe has reminded the base that it is the “early states” in which polling is important.  And this statement is true.  Because if you look at the individual state polling the numbers are solidifying and he is doing well.  And from the Obama Camp, it does not look like the money train has “stopped”.

“As the Washington insiders focus on irrelevant and wildly inconsistent national polls, there are strong signs in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina of the growing power and potential of this candidacy,” Plouffe wrote.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll last week showed Clinton, Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards in a virtual tie in Iowa.

A recent poll by the American Research Group in New Hampshire put Clinton and Obama at 31 percent apiece, and a poll by the same group in South Carolina gave Obama a 4 percent lead over Clinton in that state.

“Remember, each contest affects the next,” said Plouffe. “Our strategy has always been to focus like a laser on the early states to create the momentum crucial to later contests.”

Plouffe also pointed to Obama’s prowess at raising money from 258,000 individual donors as a sign of his strength. Obama raised about $5 million more than Clinton during the second quarter.  more

‘You blew it,’ student tells Obama, yes a student told Obama over the controversy of meeting with leaders of hostile countries from the YouTube Debate.  And you know what, Obama is not going to have everyone agree with him.  That is a fact.  When I was in Edwards’ breakout at Yearly Kos, there was a person who did not agree with one of his points, and he stated, I don’t expect you too.  And I don’t expect folk to agree with Obama on everything.  But if you want change, YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO.

Strategist Says Blacks Are Obama’s ‘Base’
Obama Vows to Stand Up Against Corporate Mega-Farm Lobbyists

Why are the GOP candidates, ganging up on Barack Obama?  What does that tell you?  Obviously, he has hit a nerve with somebody, somewhere?  And why aren’t the GOP candidates worried about “their” nomination and trekkin’ over to spit in our pool?  Yes, these are the questions, one must ask and try to answer.  I have been saying alot about poll numbers and to start looking at them in the fall, and I still mean it.  But their poll numbers must be awful to come sniffin’ around Obama.  Especially, Mitt Romney.  Matthews, from Hardball on Today Show, stated something that caught my attention, quick.  He stated that Brownback has been coming after Romney “hard” about his “flip/flop” on the right to life and questioning his “religion”.  Matthews stated that Romney’s anger was real in his response and that his gut feeling is that Romney’s “poll numbers” must be slipping in Iowa. 

Well, Matthews was RIGHT.  The current polling numbers for Republicans by the University of Iowa, Obama comes in THIRD, as the candiate Republicans will caucus for.  Unbelievable?  NO.  We know that Clinton is the candidate the Republicans want to run against, Obama is the one they do not want to run against.  If Obama gets the nomination, he will win.  He will siphon off enough Republicans, get the independents and the Democrats will be behind him.  No wonder Romney spewed all those “cheap shots” against Obama on Sunday, he knew what the polling numbers, would be.  Oh, and who won on Sunday?

Barack Obama: Obama was all over this debate and was even the basis of one of the questions. That’s great news for the Illinois Senator. It shows he has become a major center of gravity in this race although he has not yet reached the villain status enjoyed (and we do mean enjoyed) by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) It also allowed him to put out a statement of his own that drew a bright line between him and the GOP candidates on the war. “The fact that the same Republican candidates who want to keep 160,000 American troops in the middle of a civil war couldn’t agree that we should take out Osama bin Laden if we had him in our sights, proves why Americans want to turn the page on the last seven years of Bush-Cheney foreign policy,” Obama said.  more

Pure Horserace

Obama Rising? Agree with him or not, Barack Obama has become the hot candidate over the past week, gaining the attention of presidential candidates from the other party as well as his own. Obama and Hillary Clinton have sparred recently over what conditions they would or would not set for a presidential-level meeting with some of the world’s most shady characters. And at yesterday’s Republican debate in Iowa, the Illinois senator’s insistence that, as president, he would attack terrorists in part of Pakistan – with or without that nation’s cooperation – triggered discussion.  more

Obama and Vote Hope
Media Matters On It
Obama Goin’ to Miami
Warren Buffett to Host Obama Fundraiser
Visting all 50 States?
Pandering the Teachers Union

August 7, 2007

Fundraising Bundlers
Not So Nice, Uh?

Will Clinton Sever Ties With Penn?
No.  My take on all of this with the Penn/Clinton association is that he has been effective for her, period.  He is associated with a firm that prides itself with parrying union pressure.  When I look back on growing up, I grew up in a union home.  A home that allowed my parents to become middle class, to afford the dream home, to purchase a new car every 3-4 years, a home that produced four children who graduated from college.  We need more than a tax break and lip service.  We need “living wages” for workers in America, along with “living wage jobs”.  We need a president who is not a sell-out to corporate America.  We need a leader who will stand with us and beat back the influx of China in this country.  We surely do not need anymore Penn’s, and I am confident many will agree with me on this one.

Obama: Part Hawk, Part Dove?
Obama’s Heritage
What The Polls Say V. What They Mean

AFL-CIO Debate, Soldiers Field, Chicago, IL
I watched the debate and came to this conclusion.  Chris Dodd and Joe Biden want a “cabinet position” with the “hopeful president to be”, that is Clinton.  The way they went after Obama was comical, at best, with tints of desperation, to be nice.  But this gave Obama a chance to speak and clarify (video here) his position on Pakistan.  As Ben Smith from Politico wrote:

…”Well, look, I find it amusing that those who helped to authorize and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation are now criticizing me for making sure that we are on the right battlefield and not the wrong battlefield in the war against terrorism,” Obama said to applause for the crowd.  more

One shameless moment came from Senator Biden.  This was during the union members Q&A, when the widow, Deborah Hamner, whose husband died at the Sago Mines, addressed Senator Biden about federal safety regulations for mine workers.  Instead of him answering the question, he was still in tag team form of answering a question about Pakistan!!!  He was booed soundly and loudly.  The most stupid question of the night went to Senator Obama from Keith Olbermann.  Will you invite Barry Bonds to the White House?  Umm, can I categorically let you know that we don’t give a damn.  The most passionate and one that left impressions was Dennis Kucinich.  Even my husband, had to sit up and take notice.  Kucinich was the only one who would ban NAFTA for good.  And wouldn’t any union household cheer that?

During the analysis on MSNBC former Mayor Willie Brown stated something that stuck with me, and I have been writing about it on the boards.  He stated that Senator Clinton need to address and put to bed, the “lobbyist” snafu.  She had an opportunity to address this tonight and her answer was everthing but the “right answer”.  The former mayor also stated that this issue could run like a “virus”.  I have posted my comments on this and agree.  Everyone must understand this.  We follow these candidates, polls, campaign stops, etc.  The average public does not.  So, when hearing about this “lobbyist snafu”, they only have one reminder, the Jack Abramhoff lobbyist scandal.  To publicly, admit, that it is “okay” to take monies from lobbyists, puts you in the bed of “business as usual”.  This is something her campaign need to address and expect ads out “very soon”, on this issue.

Overall, Clinton is unscathed.  Obama held his own and scored some points on foreign policy.  Biden and Dodd are riding out to “Desperado”.  Edwards was just OK for me.  With the exception of calling Clinton out for being on the cover of “Fortune” or is it “Money” magazine?  Richardson better, but forgettable.  And the winner is Dennis Kucinich.  The only candidate that will send NAFTA out to pasture, and kick WTO to the curb.  AP, Washington Post, Newsday, Chris Cillizza, Full Debate Transcript
And the moment of the debate, was here, Steve Skvara, retired LTV Steel Worker:
 

Obama Will Be in Oakland for Walk A Day In My Shoes
Using PAC Money

August 8, 2007

Seeking the Hispanic Vote

…Despite becoming this presidential race’s phenomenon, with the power to draw huge crowds and raise millions of dollars, Mr. Obama remains relatively unknown among the country’s fastest-growing electorate: Nearly half of Latino voters have never heard of him, according to a June Gallup poll.

Even as he gains awareness among Hispanics, he may find wooing them to his campaign a challenge. Across the U.S., tensions simmer between Hispanics and blacks who regard each other as rivals for jobs, educational resources, housing and political power. In Los Angeles, Hispanics have become the majority in traditionally black enclaves and clashes have erupted between the groups in schools and on the streets.

For Mr. Obama, this has created a tricky situation. The fiery debate over immigration in Congress alienated many Hispanics, pushing conservatives among them into the Democratic camp and encouraging others to register to vote. But to tap into that, Mr. Obama must navigate past Democratic primary opponents who are better positioned to capitalize on those voters.

“If Obama were the Democratic presidential nominee, he would do well in the Hispanic community,” says Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster. But “he will have to fight for their support in the primaries.”  more

Rasmussen 24 Hour Trend Reversal
Obama, an Opportunistic Hawk?

Well, the Yearly Kos Presidential Forum has unleashed the “real”.  From new polling data 48% believe Senator Clinton will be “influenced” by lobbyist monies.  Since this blunder, or we can say the “keepin’ it real Hillary moment”, this put the pause in folk to say, “hold up, lobbyist represent average americans”?  Yes, folk are questioning this.  See, when you are in the “beltway”, you do get “disconnected” with how people feel.  That is why I do give kudos to Clinton for consistantly polling to keep up with the “pulse” of people.  But to come out and say that “lobbyist” gaffe is just another question to throw onto the “who is Hillary” pile.  Lastly, former Mayor Willie Brown from San Francisco summed it up.  That Hillary Rodham Clinton need to address the lobbyist issue, if she does not it will be come a virus.  And this may just be the start.

Read, Glenn Greenwald
Obama, Clinton Fighting for the Gay Vote
Gay Community Want Action, Not Just Talk

Clinton Rivals, HOLD UP, WAIT A MINUTE!!!!

Hillary Clinton has surged to a big lead in national polls for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination but her chief rivals say the polls are overblown and the race is far from over.

According to a realclearpolitics.com average of recent polls, the New York senator and former first lady is enjoying a gap of 18 percentage points over her closest challenger, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, 41 percent to 22 percent, while former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards has 11.5 percent.

Democratic strategist Jenny Backus, who is neutral in the 2008 nomination race, said the national polls are important but that Obama and Edwards are making the race a more difficult one for Clinton than her camp had anticipated.

“I think Hillary is the front-runner but not the front-runner she thought she was going to be when this race started. She was supposed to be this colossus striding over a field of pygmies. But instead she’s in a hand-to-hand battle with one very ferocious competitor and a couple others breathing on her heels,” said Backus.  more

Fundraising in Sacramento, California

Sympathy for Musharraf

“President Musharraf has a very difficult job, and it is important that we are a constructive ally with them in dealing with al-Qaida,” the Illinois senator said.

Obama did not repeat the most incendiary line from his foreign policy speech last Wednesday, when he promised: “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”  more

Obama Blasts Fundraising Group
Michelle Obama to Campaign in Reno, Nevada

 
  Good interview here….Mike Lux, Open Left

Obama does housework, homecare for labor support

With a television crew and photographers in tow, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama spent Wednesday morning mopping floors, cleaning cobwebs and preparing breakfast for an 86-year-old wheelchair-bound amputee, as he accompanied a home health care worker on her daily duties.

A day on the job has become a new ritual of the Democratic presidential campaign this year, after the powerful 1.9 million-member Service Employees International Union demanded that candidates “Walk a Day in My Shoes” with a union member in order to be considered for endorsement.

On Wednesday, it was the Illinois senator’s turn. Obama joined 61-year-old Pauline Beck, an African-American woman with gray hair and an easy manner, as she cared for John Thornton, a retired cement mason and widower who lives in a modest clapboard home in a low-income neighborhood of Oakland.

“I’m not going to lie to you. It’s been a while,” Obama said, after mopping the kitchen and bathrooms.

“I probably haven’t mopped a floor since I started my Senate race,” Obama continued, though he quickly added, “Before that, that wasn’t something I was averse to doing.”

Obama gamely assembled Thornton’s customary breakfast of coffee, frosted flakes and watermelon cubes, washed and folded laundry and gingerly approached the task of making the bed.

“Is this the way he likes it?” Obama asked. “This is the hard part for me. My wife says I’m kind of shaky.”  more, Barack Walked A Day in Pauline Beck’s Shoes

New Radio Ad in South Carolina
 
  New Ad in Iowa, “What If”

To naivesayers: Can’t Obama be new blood?

The conventional thinking – especially in Washington – is that Barack Obama is flunking foreign policy. But this is one case where conventional thinking may be too closely tied to convention and not all that well thought out.

Yes, we’ve had a glimpse of the world according to Obama. And it doesn’t look half bad.

Not the world itself, which is as dangerous and unpredictable as ever – full of petty tyrants, enemies posing as friends, and rogue states in search of nuclear weapons.

I’m talking about the worldview of the junior senator from Illinois. What seemed like a rookie mistake – i.e., suggesting that, as president, he’d meet with dictators from countries such as Cuba, Iran or North Korea – may actually wind up serving Obama well.

First, it let him draw a distinction between himself and the front-runner. Hillary Clinton helped the cause when she blasted Obama’s comments as “irresponsible and frankly naive.”

That’s baby boomer code for “young and immature.” The 46-year-old Obama stresses the fact that he’s of a different generation than his opponents. This was Clinton pushing back. She might as well have sent the whippersnapper to his room without dessert. After all, Clinton lectured, the president of the United States must be careful not to be used “for propaganda purposes.”  more

Trying to Seal the Deal With Hispanics

August 9, 2007

Obama Against the GOP
Obama’s Rise and PAC Monies
Race for ’08: Devotion, dollars for Obama

Obama Commander-in-Chief

..Over the past few weeks, Obama has been working to create a commander-in-chief moment, and it has resulted in a rough patch for his campaign. But if he wants to win the nomination, he can’t give up working for this moment.

Obama made the right decision in not backing off his comments about pursuing terrorists in Pakistan. At the AFL-CIO debate earlier this week, Chris Dodd urged Obama to admit that his statement about Pakistan was a mistake — but Obama forcefully defended himself.

Obama is correct to stand by his statement because what he originally said makes perfect sense:

“It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

Since when did going after al-Qaida become a controversial platform? Bush, Cheney and Giuliani have based their entire political identities on the vague assertion that they will hunt down the terrorists and kill them, but Obama suggests we might actually want to do this and he is hit for being naïve.

The truth is that Bush and Company gave up on catching bin Laden four years ago to focus on what they thought would be an easier time in Iraq. Intent on solidifying her hawkish credentials, Hillary went along for the ride.  more

Obama and Pakistan
Candor in the Age of Spin
Eric Michael Dyson Video, a must see

As ABC says:  “She said vs. She said?”
Hillary Rodham Clinton need to hire a staff just for canvassing “youtube, “audio, “print”, files before she opens her mouth, for criticism.  In fact, I would hope “all these campaigns” are doing just that, if not, “heads up”, you should.  Back to Clinton, who publicly “berated” Obama stating that he would not resort to using “nukes” to rule out terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  The bait and switch is that Clinton said almost the exact same thing.

“I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table,” Mrs. Clinton told Bloomberg Television in an interview in April 2006, responding to a question about how the Bush administration would try to prevent Iran from building up its nuclear program.

Last week, Mr. Obama said it would be a “profound mistake” for the United States to use nuclear weapons to fight terrorism in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Asked to reply, Mrs. Clinton said: “I think that presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.”

For weeks, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have tangled over their foreign policy views, judgment and experience in their quest to win the Democratic presidential nomination. Mrs. Clinton has challenged Mr. Obama – at one point, calling his foreign policy stands “irresponsible and frankly naïve” – while he has sought to portray his positioning as an example of how he would change Washington.

But during the television interview more than a year ago, the comments of which were reported by The Associated Press, Mrs. Clinton also discussed the role of nuclear weapons.

“I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table,” Mrs. Clintons said. “This administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven’t seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I think that’s a terrible mistake.”  more, ABC, Bloomberg

Republicans for Obama

Obama argues for civil unions for gays

Sen. Barack Obama said Thursday he wanted to tap into the “core decency” of Americans to fight discrimination against gays and lesbians, and argued that civil unions for same-sex couples wouldn’t be a “lesser thing” than marriage.

At a televised forum focusing on gay rights, the Illinois senator was asked to explain how civil unions for same-sex couples could be the equivalent of marriage. He said, “As I’ve proposed it, it wouldn’t be a lesser thing, from my perspective.

“Semantics may be important to some. From my perspective, what I’m interested (in) is making sure that those legal rights are available to people,” he said.

“If we have a situation in which civil unions are fully enforced, are widely recognized, people have civil rights under the law, then my sense is that’s enormous progress,” the Illinois Democrat said.  more, post conference

Rasmussen Poll, Obama Cut Clinton’s Lead to 12

August 10, 2007

Over on mydd bloggers for their “candidate” will be given featured author status.  This event starts Monday, and on Wednesday check out psericks and Max Fletcher, blogging for Barack Obama.  Don’t miss it.

Owner of the Utah Mine Fiasco Uses Media Against Union for Safety Conditions, a must read

Being on the Outside

Obama was compared to a rock star at the LGBT forum and received a strong welcome from the crowd. He acknowledged his experience as an African American, and how it helps him relate to the LGBT community. “When you are a black guy named Barack Obama, you know what it’s like to be on the outside.” He also said, “It is important not to look at the black candidate and wonder whether or not he’s going to be more sympathetic, or less sympathetic to these issues. I’m going to be more sympathetic not because I’m black, but because this has been the cause of my life and will continue to be the cause of my life making sure that everybody is treated fairly and we have an expansive view of America, where everybody is invited in and we are all working together to create the kind of America we want for the next generation.”
Link

Michelle Obama in Reno, NV
Emulating Bush?

Obama at National Association of Black Journalists

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday that rival Hillary Rodham Clinton was wrong when she said politicians shouldn’t discuss hypothetical decisions on foreign policy.

Speaking at a conference of the National Association of Black Journalists, the Illinois senator defended his recent call for military action to hunt down terrorists if Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf doesn’t act. Obama also said it would be “a profound mistake” to deploy nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Clinton, who has tried to cast her rival as too inexperienced for the job of commander in chief, said presidents shouldn’t make “blanket statements” with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.

“She said, I don’t I think we should talk about it. Well, I think we should talk about it. I think the American people ought to have a debate about our foreign policy because it’s so messed up and if we don’t talk about it we’re going to end up repeating the same mistakes,” Obama told an audience at a conference of the National Association of Black Journalists.

“Being experienced is not enough. The question is, what lessons do you learn from your experience?” he said. “Nobody had a better track record in experience than Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, but they had bad judgment … The people who have been criticizing me over the past two weeks are the people who engineered what is the biggest foreign policy fiasco in a generation.”

  more, audio of the event, psericks

Obama Fires Up Culinary Union Rally
Obama Can SING!!!
The One Catch All Candidates Are Trying To Snare”
 
  Obama and his girls in Las Vegas, Nevada

Barack Oblogger

August 11, 2007

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama on Saturday served as grand marshal of the annual Bud Billiken Parade, an event founded in 1929 by the Chicago Defender newspaper to celebrate area children.

Before the parade began, Obama said he was glad to be on the South Side.

“Everybody here has looked after me for years,” Obama said.

Asked if participating in the parade was part of a strategy to court black voters, Obama said, “This is my crew. I don’t worry about them. We’re doing fine.”  more, ABC7 Chicago, Video

Fighting the Arugula Factor

Professors Like Obama

Barack Obama appears to be winning the faculty lounge straw poll — his presidential campaign is cultivating academics and pacing the field in collecting cash from them.

Obama, whose website features an “Academics for Obama” page, raised nearly $1.5 million in the first half of the year from people who work for colleges and universities, according to an analysis of campaign finance data by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. And that’s 55 percent more than the $939,000 brought in by the next biggest professor’s pet, fellow Democratic senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.  more

Clinton, Obama and DOMA
Tucker, the Tool

A Series of Fortunate Events
This piece is slated for August 12, 2007, Washington Post.  I decided to include this piece with this week’s roundup because it is a facisnating read about Obama’s rise in politics.

In the summer of 2002, a little-known Illinois state legislator named Barack Obama thought he saw the political opening he’d been looking for. It was a long shot, a flier — a race for the U.S. Senate against a sitting Republican. Obama believed he could beat the incumbent, Peter Fitzgerald. The immediate and, in some ways, harder challenge would be getting the Democratic nomination.

Obama was about to turn 41. An attorney and law lecturer at the University of Chicago, he had been elected to the state Senate in 1996, but had been chafing for some time at the limitations of legislating in Springfield. In 2000, he’d overreached by challenging former Black Panther Bobby Rush for the seat Rush held in the U.S. House of Representatives. It had been a disastrous bid, but understandable given that in Illinois, as around the country, paths to higher office for black politicians are few.
 
But this new opportunity looked, to him, feasible. In 1992, another Chicago politician, Carol Moseley Braun, had demonstrated that it was possible for an African American to win a statewide U.S. Senate primary, as long as there were at least two white Democrats to split the white vote. And several were already lining up to take on Fitzgerald.

There was just one problem, and it was a big one: Moseley Braun was talking about running herself. Only the second African American U.S. senator since Reconstruction, she had lost to Fitzgerald in 1998, in part as a result of allegations, never proved, that she had misused campaign funds. After the loss, she had been appointed U.S. ambassador to New Zealand. But now she was back in Hyde Park, the neighborhood that surrounds the University of Chicago, where Obama also lived. If she did run, there would be two credible black Democrats in the primary — one far better known than the other.  more

Leave it to Barack Obama

Leave it to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) to stir up an international incident by acknowledging something everyone already knew.

Obama’s bombshell: If the Obama administration knows Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan and President Pervez Musharraf doesn’t act to take him out, President Obama will. Obama’s rivals in the race for the White House pounced, calling his stance naive and a sign of his lack of foreign policy experience. They didn’t disagree with the policy. They didn’t like the way he said it.

The gloves are coming off. We’re seeing a new debate emerging in the dog days of summer that’s centering on how much Obama has to learn about foreign policy. The former first lady and second-term senator, who has been widening her lead over Obama in polls, certainly has the edge on experience. But Obama has a big comeback of his own: If experience got us into the foreign policy mess we face today, that kind of experience is overrated.

Yet, Clinton and other leading Democratic rivals, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, saw an opportunity to criticize Obama and they took it. So did former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani on the Republican roster.

Yet, Obama’s critics acknowledged that his policy is already the Bush administration’s policy. Furthermore, none of the leading candidates disagreed with it.

So what was the problem? The issue quickly became a question of international etiquette.  more

Obama Gets His Groove Back
 
If you want “business as usual”, and believe “lobbyists represent the average american”, well you know who your candidate is.  If you want change, real change, you know WHAT TO DO.

Shoutouts:  a must read foreclosures; harold ford, exposed; glenn w smith, on the dlc; did you miss hillary and the lobbyists?; read my entitlement diary; iowa caucus in december?; apology for my gaffe, giuliani; a must read by FishOutofWater; clammyc; giuliani’s daughter backs barack; more katrina; govenor spitzer; NYTimes video of Yearly Kos; yearly kos photos; mike lux; we still do need unions;  minnesota bridge update; the gloves are off!!!; my partner in crime, lovingj; another lovingj video; kos and cafe standards; amen, kos, amen; cowards; more troops in iraq, than ever; a message for us; iraq casualty list; army recruiting incentives; general wesley clark; cenk uygur, not once but twice; jeffrey feldman; psericks afl-cio recap; no endorsement from labor; brooklynbadboy, great diary; jerome a  paris; soldier field’s tailgating parties by bored now; kos is right, mitt romney is full of it!!; canvassing in NH; and donate to the obama campaign, here

Missed YKos Presidential Forum?  Right Here
yearly kos presidential forum part I and part II;

Missed AFL-CIO Debate?  Right Here
afl-cio debate part I, part II, part III, part IV; part V; part VI; part VII; part VIII; part IX

icebergslim’s final word:  This week’s final word is about a “supposed to be” Democrat by the name of Harold Ford, Jr.

I don’t really know where to begin.  One thing I do know for sure, we can have knockdown, drag out fights, arguments, amongst each other.  Even when our candidate does not win the primary, we begrudgingly rally behind the Democrat.  Now this is something I have not witnessed in a while, a “Democrat” assaulting a Democratic Progressive Website, Daily Kos.

I don’t know what Mr. Ford is trying to accomplish by “bashing us”, but let me remind him a tad bit of what this community is about.  During his campaign he got a “hell of a lot of money” from the community of that site and all through the progressive community.  Many did not believe he could win, but many of us, did.  He may not be on the same “page” as many of us, but he is a Democrat and thus so, we supported him.

Now, since Mr. Ford did not win, he is working as a correspondent with the Fox News Channel, Vice Chairman and Senior Policy Advisor for Merrill Lynch, and is Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Conference. 

He started with an op-ed piece, tag-teaming with Governor O’Malley of Maryland titled, “Our Chance to Capture the Center”, and his opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal.  I am not going to comment about these articles, it speaks for itself.  But, what I found rather “odd” is that this is not how most Democrats think.  It is not.  Nor are we trying to get back to “center”, look what that has done for us?  Nothing.  So, is he out of touch?  Is he ranting because the presidential candidates decided to support and address, the Yearly Kos Convention, instead of the DLC, which they did a “no-show”?  If so, what kind of “cheese” do you wish with your “whine”?

Moving on, Mr. Ford presumes that we think next year will be a “cakewalk”, I hardly think so.  Every vote will be fought for, we totally get that.  We, Democrats, have been fighting this battle for as long as I can remember, which includes for me, my mother, dragging me and my brothers and sister, through the neighborhood knocking on doors, for DEMOCRATS.

What I am getting from Mr. Ford’s article is a “throwback” to the “Clinton Years”, the “90’s”.  That reads well on paper, but this is 2007, driving into 2008.  People are different, times are different, and issues are different, period.  And to think “that time” will fit into “this time” is wishful thinking, at best.

Mr. Ford can continue to go on Bill O’Reilly’s show, continue to write op-ed pieces, rant and rave, all he want  Oh, by the way, Mr. Ford, did you read Markos’ op-ed, by chance?  Anyway, he has assaulted us, the many of us who commune at Daily Kos because many do not agree with him, and many of us are Democrats.  And he has taken it public.  On this note, for me, he is just like Joe Lieberman, ’nuff said on that one.  Mr. Ford has lost any support or admiration he got from me, and if it was up to my husband this would not be “readable”.  So, in closing, Mr. Ford definately will not get another check for his endeavors from, icebergslim, again.

 
  Obama @ YKos breakout, thanks casperr for the pix!!

email me for any questions, read ya next week, remember to focus on Obama, not the drama….

donate to next year’s netroots nation conference/convention, (a.k.a. Yearly Kos) here

p.s. a wonderful shoutout to pastordan

This was a significant week in Bill Richardson’s campaign for President, with a major address on climate change and how to end the bloodshed in Iraq. 

It was also a significant week for peace and stability in Korea and Asia – which highlights Richardson’s expertise in foreign affairs and his diplomatic skills. With Richardson as President we get two for the price of one – a can-do leader on domestic issues and an experienced diplomat that knows how to bring people and nations together.

First, Richardson spoke in D.C. at the Take Back America Conference and set forth an unambiguous approach to Iraq – total withdrawal of U.S. forces combined with a diplomatic offensive:

But there is a fundamental difference in this campaign — and that’s how many troops each of us would leave behind. Other than the customary marine contingent at the embassy, I would leave zero troops. Not a single one. And if the embassy and our embassy personnel aren’t safe, then they’re all coming home too.

No airbases. No troops in the Green Zone. No embedded soldiers training Iraqi forces, because we all know what that means. It means our troops would still be out on patrol with targets on their backs.

A regional crisis is worthy of military intervention. A true threat to our country’s security is worthy of war. But a struggle between a country’s warring factions, where both sides hate the United States, is not worthy of one more lost American life.

Richardson also discussed his plan to addressing climate change:

I’m proud to have the most aggressive plan of anyone running for president. Within twelve years, my plan would reduce global warming pollution by 20 percent, lower demand for oil by fifty percent, and push fuel economy standards to 50 miles per gallon.

By the year 2040, my plan would require that 50 percent of our electricity be generated from renewable sources and would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent.

You can read the plan for yourself at my campaign website or you can listen to the League of Conservation Voters. They rated it the most aggressive plan with the highest goals of any other candidate. These aren’t pie in the sky proposals, but they are ambitious.

If we can spend billions waging war in a country that never had weapons of mass destruction … then we can certainly find the will to stop the mass destruction of our planet.

It’s time that we as a nation chose the collective good over the desire to collect goods. And frankly, buying carbon offsets isn’t enough. Just like paying somebody else to go to church doesn’t make you religious … paying somebody else to conserve doesn’t make you a conservationist.

Earlier this year, Richardson visited North Korea and helped revive U.S.-North Korean negotiations on nuclear weapons issues.  During his April visit, North Korean leaders promised Richardson that they would meet with U.S. officials and representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor the shutdown of North Korea’s nuclear reactor, in exchange for the U.S. unfreezing funds owned by North Korea and held outside the country. 

In statement issued by the campaign, Richardson noted:

North Korean leaders made a promise to me to invite Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill to meet in North Korea. This high-level meeting comes on the heels of progress made toward shutting down the Yongbyon nuclear facility. Both of these actions are important steps in the process toward the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

In an Op Ed published in The Hill, Richardson called on Congress to pass and fully fund the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007 in order to move America to a reliable and verifiable paper-ballot system now, and discussed efforts in New Mexico to adopt paper ballots:

In 2005 a grassroots coalition of concerned New Mexicans demanded action — and we acted. Working together with these citizens and the state legislature, I fought for legislation to increase voter confidence in our democracy through specific and concrete measures. We improved and standardized training for poll workers. We established statewide standards for provisional ballots to ensure that voters in low-income areas will not be disenfranchised. We made absentee voting fair, simple and uniform. And we established a random, statewide 2 percent audit of voting machines.

One year later, I signed a bill to move New Mexico to an all-paper-ballot system using optical scanners to count votes. We ended the hodgepodge of systems that confused voters and raised questions about reliability.

New Mexico’s conversion to a paper-ballot system made sense. Paper ballots are the least expensive, most secure form of voting available. . . .Using optical scanners meant quick and accurate results, while at the same time paper ballots became the permanent, verifiable, durable record of the vote.

Campaigning in Iowa, Richardson was asked to respond to John Edwards’ claim that he is more electable than Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. Richardson noted that the Rocky Mountain and Southwest states were becoming increasing Democratic:

We in the Democratic Party seem to be nominating candidates that maybe are very strong in the East Coast and the far West Coast.  The only dispute I have with the senator’s perception is that I can deliver the Rocky Mountain states that other candidates can’t.

When questioned on his position on abortion rights, Richardson made clear his support:

Democrat Bill Richardson says that if he’s elected president, he would reject any Supreme Court nominees who believe Roe versus Wade should be overturned. . .  Richardson made the comment today in Des Moines, acknowledging that his stance probably upsets some people. Presidents typically say they don’t ask potential justices about their views on specific cases, but Richardson says he would make an exception for Roe versus Wade.

Another article on the question of abortion rights observed:

Richardson said he’d treat abortion rights differently than other issues because it’s so crucial to so many Americans. ‘‘I say this because we always dance around this issue,’’ said Richardson. ‘‘I’m also going to ask them, you do support civil rights, right? You do support a right of privacy, right?’’

By not directly discussing standards for picking nominees, Richardson said presidential candidates hide vital information from voters. ‘‘I would put men and women on the court who would shape policy for a generation,’’ said Richardson. ‘‘That’s the biggest legacy of a president. We’re already paying for the Bush legacy with these last few decisions on privacy and choice.’’

Questioned on his position on illegal immigration, Richardson stated:

I have to deal with this issue every day as the governor of New Mexico. There are four border states, and we are one of them. Am I for this wall? No. It’s a 10-foot wall. First of all, Congress didn’t fund the whole thing. And do you know what’s going to be built? Eleven-foot ladders.

Richardson criticized the new Senate energy bill passed by the Democrats as a Band-Aid approach that did not go far enough to curb our dependency on imported oil or spur serious technological innovation and promote renewable energy:

A haunting question hangs over the new energy bill passed by the Democratic-controlled Senate just before midnight Thursday: Would it work if it became law?

The real answer lies far in the future, but skepticism was rampant Friday. One prominent presidential candidate, New Mexico’s Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson, called it a “Band-Aid approach,” a sentiment expressed by other critics. Some called price-gouging provisions in the bill virtually meaningless, and President Bush has threatened to veto any bill containing such provisions.

Democratic leaders held out great promise for the legislation, saying it would reduce the nation’s reliance on foreign oil and help keep gasoline prices in check. “A giant leap forward,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) declared.

. . .In counterpoint to high Democratic praise in the Senate, Richardson, who served as energy secretary in the Clinton administration, said in a statement the bill did not go far enough and would not break U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

“It’s another Band-Aid approach, not the comprehensive medical treatment our nation’s energy policy needs,” he said. He called for a 50 m.p.g. fuel economy standard for cars instead of the 35 miles per gallon in the bill, which would have to be attained by 2020.

Richardson called for legislation that would incorporate the following elements as part of a comprehensive, integrated approach to climate and energy policy by 2020:

* Sharp incentives for making the plug-in car 50% of the auto market, giving consumers the option to fuel up at a fraction of the cost of gasoline;
*  A 50 mpg fuel economy standard for conventionally fueled vehicles, helping stimulate technologies that save fuel and save consumers gas money;
*  A 30% renewable energy requirement, which will help fuel our plug-in cars and will cause the retirement of dirty old coal plants;
*  A 20% improvement in energy efficiency across the board;
*  A climate change cap and trade program that auctions rights for industries and utilities to emit carbon at lower and lower levels — at least 20% less by 2020, and 80% less by 2040.

Finally, Richardson spoke on the importance of LGBT rights and Pride Month:

I am very pleased to join my friends in the GLBT community and Americans across the country in celebrating Pride Month. This month is a deserved commemoration of the contributions of GLBT Americans to the United States and a welcome symbol of how far we have come as a nation.

We must also acknowledge that we are in the midst of a difficult struggle for basic human rights and we have a long way to go. This month is a worthy symbol of our progress towards full civil rights for every American, but we cannot ignore the challenges we still must conquer before we can truly move forward and create a better society.