Tag Archives: Bill Clinton

California Democratic Party in Crisis; Art Torres Should Resign

Every political insider in the state woke up this morning, opened the Sacramento Bee and read:

Perata aid angers some Dems

$250,000 to help with his legal bills should go to 2008 races, they say.

The California Democratic Party’s decision to spend another $250,000 on Senate leader Don Perata’s legal bills has angered some party activists, who say the money would be better spent electing Democrats this year.

The Oakland Democrat has racked up nearly $2 million in fees fending off an ongoing FBI corruption investigation in the last four years. With the latest donation, made July 1, the party has now given a total of $450,000 to help cover Perata’s legal bills.

“The California Democratic Party is in business to defeat Republicans and elect Democrats,” said Rick Jacobs, co-founder of the Courage Campaign, a left-leaning online activist group. “It’s not really to keep corrupt politicians out of jail.”

Steve Cummings, vice president of the Democratic Club of Ventura County, said that while he had not personally formed an opinion, “People are going to be livid.”

Democratic activists who want to take advantage of what could be another tidal wave year should be livid to see the CDP waste money like this. Wasting money on an impotent lame duck who should have passed the batton to Darrell Steinberg long ago instead of electing Democrats is plain stupid. There is no excuse. Art Torres should resign in shame. With this latest scandal, on top of the $4,000,000 he wasted on Fabian Nunez, it is abundantly clear that Torres has no intention of doing his job.

Tomorrow, Speaker Karen Bass is hosting a small dollar fundraiser for the CDP. How can Speaker Bass honestly ask Democratic activists to go to Actblue and make a two figure donation when the CDP is writing six and seven figure checks that have nothing to do with electing Democrats? Chair Torres is embarrassing Speaker Bass with this crap and putting her in an awful position thanks to legal crisis created by the clear appearance of impropriety by Senator Don Perata.

At the heart of the crisis rolling the CDP is money. While DNC Chair Howard Dean and Democratic Party presidential nominee Barack Obama have crossed the bridge to the 21st century and inspired small dollar donors to build people-powered political operations, the CDP is actually going backwards and Chair Torres is running things worse than when he was first anointed by then President Bill Clinton a decade ago. Chair Torres is either unable or unwilling to lead the CDP in this direction. As such, he has no business being Chair and should resign immediately.

When I hear the name “Art Torres” I have a sour taste in my mouth. My first thought is how far the $4,450,000 he has wasted could have gone to register and organize Democrats. Think how far that could have gone towards actually helping Charlie Brown this cycle, or Debbie Cook or Russ Warner or any of the great challengers who should be receiving strong support from the Party. If we lose Proposition 8 and California codifies discrimination into the state constitution, I’m going to think how far that money could have gone towards registering and turning out Democrats. Think how many organizers could be hired and trained with such a large sum.

The California Democratic Party is lost and the first step to set a new course is to admit that the CDP is FUBAR with Art Torres at the helm. Chair Torres needs to step down, preferably before he shames Speaker Bass at tomorrow night’s small dollar fundraiser. For as long as he stays, it makes no sense for small donors to contribute and every Democrat on the ballot this fall in a tight race is at an extreme disadvantage. It is time for reform, for progress. It is time to start winning.

[UPDATE by Dave] – Might as well add this here – the FISA Amendments Act passed today, and Sen. Feinstein voted for cloture, for the final bill, and against stripping out immunity.  Art Torres told us all that last year, she “led the fight” to stop telecom immunity in the United States Senate.  Draw your own conslusions.

Dianne Feinstein Thinks Dianne Feinstein Should be Censured

UPDATE by Dave: Today is NOT the big day.  Jesse Helms, in his most positive act as a Senator, died over the weekend, and his funeral will delay the FISA vote until Wednesday.  There will be debate in the Senate today, with votes likely tomorrow.  You have additional time to call your Senators.

…………………………………….

The United States Senate will soon vote on whether to provide retroactive immunity to the big telecom companies who broke the law with George Bush and violated the constitution with warrantless wiretaps (beginning before 9/11). From her absurd perch on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein has been leading the push to protect Bush by protecting the telecoms and preventing discovery in the case so the American people never get their day in court and our country may not be able to find out the true extent of shredding of the Constitution that DiFi enabled. Senator Feinstein put our presidential nominee in an awful position with her representation of the administration and made a joke of Art Torres.

Today is the big day and if Senator Feinstein violates her oath of office and does not defend the Constitution, she is likely to face censure again. And while DiFi never responded to the outcry by over 40 wonderful organizations leading the push to censure her, we do know where she stands on censure. You see, Feinstein once pushed her own censure resolution and tell me if the language she used doesn’t sound like she thinks she should be censured.

Key points in bold, from a decade ago:

WHEREAS — William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate employee in the White House, which was shameless, reckless and indefensible;

WHEREAS — William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, deliberately misled and deceived the American people and officials in all branches of the United States Government;

WHEREAS — William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, gave false or misleading testimony and his actions have had the effect of impeding discovery of evidence in judicial proceedings;

WHEREAS — William Jefferson Clinton’s conduct in this matter is unacceptable for a President of the United States, does demean the Office of the President as well as the President himself, and creates disrespect for the laws of the land;

WHEREAS — President Clinton fully deserves censure for engaging in such behavior;

WHEREAS — future generations of Americans must know that such behavior is not only unacceptable but also bears grave consequences, including loss of integrity, trust and respect;

WHEREAS — William Jefferson Clinton remains subject to criminal actions in a court of law like any other citizen;

WHEREAS — William Jefferson Clinton’s conduct in this matter has brought shame and dishonor to himself and to the Office of the President; and

WHEREAS — William Jefferson Clinton through his conduct in this matter has violated the trust of the American people;

Now therefore, be it resolved that: The United States Senate does hereby censure William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, and condemns his conduct in the strongest terms.

Now be it further resolved that: The United States Senate recognizes the historic gravity of this bipartisan resolution, and trusts and urges that future Congresses will recognize the importance of allowing this bipartisan statement of censure and condemnation to remain intact for all time; and

Be it further resolved that: The Senate now move on to other matters of significance to our people, to reconcile differences between and within the branches of Government, and to work together — across party lines — for the benefit of the American people.

Bill Richardson indirectly calls Bill Clinton Misinformed

(Crossposted at Daily Kos)

Brian has a diary about the session Bill Clinton had with Superdelegates at the CDP convention, and his comments to Rachel Binah about Carville calling Bill Richardson Judas.

(I had a chance to meet Rachel this weekend, and she is a great person, and very sharp.)

Then there is the excellent Op-Ed by Bill Richardson on the issue of his endorsement of Obama, and James Carville’s comments referring to Richardson as a Judas:

“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Carville told the New York Times.

Carville, who usually appears on CNN as an analyst, today was an interviewee, telling Wolf Blizter that his quote “had its desired intent” — i.e., depicting Richardson as disloyal to the Clinton brand that he once had been so firmly affixed to.

Where this story gets interesting is when Bill Clinton is quoted in the SF Chronicle today as saying:

“Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that,” a red-faced, finger-pointing Clinton erupted.

Meaning, Bill Clinton is saying that Richardson told him that Richardson would never endorse Obama, I suppose that means Richardson would endorse Clinton or at least not endorse.

In any case, Bill Clinton is adamant in this quote that Richardson told him that he would never endorse Obama and probably would endorse Clinton.

Richardson in his Op-Ed, Loyalty to my Country, yesterday says:

And while I was truly torn for weeks about this decision, and seriously contemplated endorsing Sen. Clinton, I never told anyone, including President Clinton, that I would do so. Those who say I did are misinformed or worse.

Richardson says that those that say that Richardson would endorse Clinton are “misinformed

There could be alot of word parsing here, but this sounds like there are inconsistencies in the business of was Richardson going to endorse Hillary Clinton or not, and did he tell Bill Clinton that he was going to endorse anyone, or did he just tell Bill Clinton he would never endorse Obama.

Bill Richardson, by virtue of this Op-Ed, could be saying that Bill Clinton is misinformed or worse.

Update: Bill Richardson on CNN:


“I never did,” Richardson said. “I never saw [President Clinton] five times. I saw him when he watched the Super Bowl with me. We made it very clear to him that he shouldn’t expect an endorsement after that meeting.”

“I held back. I waited. I felt the campaign got nasty. I heard Senator Obama; he would talk to me continuously,” Richardson said.

“The Clintons should get over this,” he added.

Bill Clinton plays Bill Richardson like he did Chris Wallace at CDP Convention

That’s a lot of names there, huh? I was thinking about throwing Carole Migden in there as well, but decided to limit myself. At any rate, former President Clinton went off at the mere mention of Governor Bill Richardson. From Matier and Ross:

The Bill Clinton who met privately with California’s superdelegates at last weekend’s state convention was a far cry from the congenial former president who afterward publicly urged fellow Democrats to “chill out” over the race between his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Barack Obama.

In fact, before his speech Clinton had one of his famous meltdowns Sunday, blasting away at former presidential contender Bill Richardson for having endorsed Obama, the media and the entire nomination process.

“It was one of the worst political meetings I have ever attended,” one superdelegate said.

Apparently, Rachel Binah of Mendocino County brought up the New Mexico Governor’s name, and Bill went off.  CDP Chair Art Torres reportedly called Binah to apologize for the former President. I don’t know what’s going on with President Clinton, but perhaps he needs more sleep or something. It’s clear the pressures of the campaign are getting to him in a way totally unlike the 1992 campaign.

The Clinton campaign is shunting the former President off to minor markets where the locals in the media and the activist set are just excited to see somebody of that character. Clinton himself titled his new role as “rural hitman.” Perhaps they have yoga studio in South Bend, IN where he could “just chill out.”

Bill Clinton speech

What follows below is a rough transcript of Bill Clinton’s speech.

Thank you very much, good morning California Democrats.  (Other thank-yous, yadda yadda.)  [juls notes that the song Bill entered to was the song that Kerry entered to at the DNC in 2004.]

This has been an unprecedented election year in terms of voters and donations.  You didn’t have to be against everyone.  This has been an amazing election year, and there’s been a reason.  The American people know that the country has to change, our position in the world is out of place and we have to restore security, peace and cooperation.  They know that and they have lifted the energy in the Democratic primary process.

What I want to get out of the way is the idea that we’re going to weaken the party in the fall.  But on June 2, 1992, when I won the Democratic primaries in New Jersey, Ohio and California, I was running behind Ross Perot and Bush.  So that’s how much you can pay attention to the polls.  Ross was first.  But then when the Democratic Convention opened, I and Gore were in first place and we never lost.  And the fact that we had a vigorous debate in the primary turned out to be a blessing in surprise.  So don’t let people tell you in [all the states that vote next] that they don’t count.  So chill out, and let everybody have their say.  Don’t forget, it was Will Rogers who said that he didn’t belong to an organized political party, he was a Democrat.

We’re organized, we’re full of energy.  I don’t know anybody, any Democrat, who believes that we should continue 4 more years of the current economic and Iraq policies.  We want to change the future of this country.

I’ve been to California 70 times because Chelsea was in schol, but there were a bunch of disasters, etc.  Hillary said  in Wyoming that she would have someone in the White House who would take care of the smaller states in teh mountain west.  What you do is governed by four things: doing what you’re trying to do.  Second is the emergencies that come in.  How you deal with it and when you deal with it.  Third is the Congressional Calendar, and the fourth is how you organize the White House.  California was better off because there was someone who was called the Secretary of California because he was responsible for everything that was on the plate, everything we did, and Hillary wants to do that in the West.

We have to campaign in every state [ed note: except the ones that are irrelevant?].  But let’s talk about where we are.  Why did all these people show up for us?  Twice as many voters and money!  We live in an independent world, and America has been absorbing too much of the bad and not enough of the good.  We’ve been facing a financial meltdown, and I think the Reserve did what they had to do to avoid a meltdown, but more than 1 million of our citizens are dealing with foreclosures, just because people were trying to keep the housing market going.  I’ve gotten several of these and read them.  and a lot of them never missed a mortgage payment.  Not a single one of these people were told that the mortgage companies were going to bottle up  their mortgage into stock making the mortgages worthless so they had to extract more from the borrowers.  Compton had teh highest rate of foreclosure in the nation, but it’s no different in the rest of the nation.

That’s because the only thing you ask yourself when you make the down payment is, can you make the monthly payment?  But whenever a home is foreclosed it costs the economy $250,000.  Now, a lot of people are waiting on these rebate checks, but if we foreclose on a million citizens, it will swamp whatever positive impact these checks are going to have and catapult this country into a crisis.  Hillary’s position is clear: moratorium for 90 days, and then we ought to guarantee a mortgage payment for five years.  That’s better economics than letting them foreclose.  If you foreclose on them, you never get your money back because you’ll never get your money back.  We’ll give you 20% and you eat the other 20%.  If this country can stop Bear Stearns behavior, we ought to be able to save a million working Americans in their homes.

In a larger sense, where are we with this economy?  After a second big bite, we realized that trickle-down economics is a failure.  And if you compare this economy with the 90s, there’s a reason we study history and it’s so that we don’t make the same mistake twice.  Most people think we’re in a recession.  And they are, but the country is not.  The country isn’t in recession, which is 6 months of negative economic growth, and the country hasn’t had that.  But people have.  The average family will pay more for food, gas and healthcare.  So since the fist time since I ran for president, I go to community meetings, and I hear people who say, have to be careful at the grocery store or I won’t be able to buy medicine.  90% of the benefits have gone to the top income earners.  Now, we Americans don’t resent people having money, but we want shared prosperity and shared responsibility.

When I entered the White House, I was the poorest first family.  But I was fortunate after leaving.  And they started throwing tax cuts at me while we had soldiers overseas and we were borrowing money from China.  And that is wrong.  So how are we going to get out of it?  Look at what the problem is: trickle-down economics is a failure.  In the 1990s, we had 22.7 million new jobs.  This decade, only 5 million.  And 5 million have fallen into poverty, most of them working full time.  In my administration the bottom 20% grew more than the top 5%.  But in this decade, median family income is $1,000 (lower?) than it was last decade.

I support Hillary because I think she has the best plan and greatest ability to turn this economy around, reclaim the future for the middle class.  And when I give a speech, I get the feeling that half the people look at me cross-eyed thinking that I won’t be able to go home at night if I don’t.  But knowning what I know about the Presidency and the condition of America around the world–I’m going to be there for here even if we hadn’t been married because I think she’s the best candidate in 40 years.  And my daughter asked me if she thought Hillary would be a better president than me, and she said yes.  And I agree with her.  If she’s fortunate enough to be elected and her plans pass, we’ll have more prosperity than we did when I was in office.  I really believe that.  But in order to do that you have to get the job machine going.

The only source of new jobs in rich countries that’s producing a rising middle class is a commiting to energy independence and green energy.  We want to put a huge number of solar panels in California Universities.

I was in Texas, and the wind was blowing 56 miles an hour.  We can have solar energy and wind energy, and all the people who say we can’t electrify America with wind energy, that’s wrong, because the Department of Energy says that we can do it just with the wind from Texas to North Dakota.

We also need to develop 100mpg vehicles.  Eventually, we’ll have no-gas vehicles too.  But we need to put more money into research to get something out of that.  This research, human genome research.  These are basically hybrids on steroids.  Instead of an electric battery operating until 25 mph, do 55mph instead.  And then we can say, charge whatever you want for oil, because we don’t care, we’ll keep our 350 billion at home.

Now we don’t have enough lithium to make the batteries to get all of them made, but that’s what a President is for, is to do that research.  And if we can be the first to the moon, we can be the first to build a better car battery.

Healthcare.  There’s a reason the AHA broke with tradition and endorsed [interrupted by a phone call.]  If you had any other country’s system, you’d be paying $700 billion less.  So if you really want affordable health care, support Hillary and she’ll give it to you.

We have to dramatically change No Child Left Behind.  And it’s not that we don’t want California’s children to compete.  We know they can.  Studies show that 98% of the people have the brain capacity to learn everythiing they need to know.  But there’s an achievement gap in America.  Kids in other countries go to school longer, they pay their teachers longer and train them harder.  They have national standards.  We have something good too: we don’t put our disabled in a closet.

But No Child Left Behind requires 5 tests every 5 years.  Every year, they teach to the test and every year our children learn less.  So it has to be changed.  The federal government should recognize that too many teachers are about to retire, and we need to concentrate on replacing them with qualified teachers.  And we need to pick a representative body from the schools that are reaching international standards, figure out what they’re doing right and implement that.

Can you believe some of our kids are paying 16% interest a year?  That needs to be stopped and Hillary will do that.  In the middle of the campaign, Hillary went back to pass a bill that allows students to convert their student debt, and with the cost of college exploding, allowing people to repay these loans is a must because we can’t afford for people not to go to college because they’re afraid of the money.

I have to make a full disclosure.  There is an issue that Hillary is more conservative than Bush on: the budget.  We paid the debt down when we didn’t have any instability in the economy.  And if you go to Hillary’s site you’ll see that every last dollar in her budget is paid for.  The point I’m making is that we can’t enforce our  trade laws because of our deficits with Japan, China, Korea, and Canada, Saudi Arabia and Mexico.  And guess who owes us in trade?  The same countries.  This is one area that Democrats should be more conservative.  It makes good sense for the future of the young people in this audience not to borrow this money.

Another thing very briefly is that Hillary will be the best commander in chief.  That also means diplomat in chief.  We have to send a very different signal to the world.  They’re made for getting out of the nuclear test ban treaty while telling others that they can’t have nuclear weapons.  How can you sell saying, “You can’t have one of what I have 1500 of and what I want to build more of?”

We want to be bound by the Geneva Convention on Human Rights regarding torture.  Having one set of rules for America is not what we’re about.  and what Hillary wants to say is that America is back in the cooperation and diplomacy business with friend and foe alike.  So what does that mean about Iraq?  She believes strongly that we need to bring our troops home.  A brigade or two a month.  Andn I hope you all agree–we owe it to the translators and the drivers to let them come home to America.  The Bush Admministration is against that–now, she would leave a small special forces group in the north where there’s no fighting in case Al-Qaeda gets out of hand.  No permanent bases, but staying there as a small stabilizing force.  We have been there longer than WWII, our army serves in 15-month deployments, longer than WWII, there are huge family problems for people who serve multiple deployments.

It is time to bring the troops home.  Because of her membership in the Armed Services Committee, she has the support of 34 retired generals who all think we need to bring the troops home.  We’re now training Navy reserves in army tactics and deploying them to the gulf.  This is unsustainable.  And the Iraqis need to decide how to share oil money and the political power.

One last thing: we can save most of the $120 billion we’re spending there.  We can’t end an unpopular war without continuing our obligations to the people who served there.  There are 200,000 homeless veterans.  One of the reasons she’s going to win Pennsylvania is that John Murtha thinks that she will be the best one to take care of veterans.

One last thing again: You have to decide what you want the next president to do.  now, not when it’s over.  She said I’d like to be able to say that the American people will be better off when I’m done than when I started.  And to do that, you need to be a change agent.  The issue isn’t the historic nature of the candidates.  I was in North Carolina, and this woman asked me to look at her girl.  And she has a lovely teenager daughter (did you really want to say that, Bill?}…

I’m sorry, I’ve lost my interest in this speech, and he’s talking too fast…

“Just Chill Out”

Picture 14I’m live blogging President Clinton’s speech to the CDP convention. The former President’s first point seems to be that he got bloodied by a long primary, and that he won nonetheless. So, just chill out people.

He went on to describe some sort of position that would focus regionally. So, there’s going to be a California “czar” or something like that. Interesting that he said that Hillary will compete everywhere. Some sort of 50-state strategy. …

… He then went on to tick off the boxes. The mortgage crisis, green jobs, …

And then there’s healthcare. Here in California, it was Republicans who were touting the individual mandate, and Democrats who were fighting it. Hillary supports the mandate with cost caps, kinda like the ABX1 plan, but, you know, different. Either way, the insurance plans get massive premiums, the question is whether they actually use them for care.

He seems to be losing the hall a bit. It’s quieter, perhaps even not as loud as Harris.

“There’s one area where Hillary is more conservative than Bush: the budget. She supports repayment of the debt…”

Nice little talk about the overstretched military and homeless veterans.

In wrapup mode now, she hopes to be a “change agent.” Who will build the best future for America.  Kinda weird, because a lot of these are applause lines, but the applause is sporadic and quiet. I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that the speech was almost an hour long, and there’s not a whole lot new here.

What a difference a DAY makes

Perhaps not surprising, but certainly striking nonetheless, is the explosion of press and outside-the-center activity now that Bill Clinton’s arrival is near at hand.  Where once the blogger riser was empty, now there’s no room for everyone.  Leno/Migden and Blumenfield/Healey/Waldman will apparently be kicking things off this morning- presumably catching everyone while they’re half asleep and/or hungover from last night.  Frank Russo kinda stole my headline before I could write it, but it’s a good one- Migden-Leno Endorsement Fight May Overshadow Bill Clinton Speech at California Democratic Party Convention Today.  As a few of us were discussing earlier, it’ll be a story for the ages if Carole Migden manages to steal the spotlight from Bill Clinton.

…and we’re off.

[Update by Lucas] To clarify how this vote is going down, a “Yes” vote would be for the initial winner of yesterday’s endorsement (Migden and Blumenfield) while a “No” vote would mean no endorsement of anyone.

[Update by Dave] …the Hillary visibility extras are massing on the floor.  Incidentally, I heard that Phil Donahue’s movie, which screened here last night, is uncompromising on Hillary’s war vote, and during the time when she talks about it in the film she was booed.  The reaction from the audience here to the Big Dog should be interesting.

Picture 12[Update by Dave] …Christine Pelosi is talking about the party platform.  Marriage equality is in there, which is awesome, as well as the party’s commitment to a safe and orderly withdrawal from Iraq and single payer healthcare.  That’s a good platform.  And it passed without any incident.  Fantastic.

[Update by Dave] …Inola Henry on the Resolutions Committee reports that the party endorses a no vote on 98 and yes on 99 for the June election, and endorses the recall of Jeff Denham in SD-12.  That’s great, though I hope that the party will put some muscle behind the racall.  Prop. 98 would end rent control throughout the state, and it must be stopped.  Art Torres says “that’s the easiest resolutions report we’ve ever had.”

[Update by Lucas] San Francisco DA Kamala Harris is taking the stage now, speaking on behalf of Obama.  Suddenly people have energy in the room.

[Update by Dante]Debra Bowen is talking about her review of the state’s voting systems.  Meanwhile, both Robert and Brian are looking at Debra Bowen’s Facebook page.

[Update by Lucas] Video montage of the Convention just ended. Clips of Willie Brown being awesome, candidates, Pelosi, activists, on and on. Pretty cool, if with a bit of an ‘end of summer camp’ vibe.

[Update by Brian]: And we’re killing time. This has got to be the longest secretary’s report EVER.

[Update by Lucas] Well, here comes Bill. And everyone’s gettin excited. Also, I could do without ever getting shushed by Art Torres again.

California relelgated to being an ATM again

Well, we had our very brief moment in the sun on Feb. 5, but we’re back where we are used to being now: the nation’s political ATM. Tomorrow, the Big Dog makes a swing through the Bay Area for his wife, hoping to pick up a quick mil for her campaign:

Hillary Clinton may be campaigning elsewhere Monday, but her purse is in California. And her husband is carrying it. Bill Clinton will try to fill it with upward of $1 million from three private fundraisers in the Bay Area on Monday, including two at homes in Saratoga and Portola Valley, to try to keep pace with the Barack Obama money machine.

California has always been a cash cow for presidential campaigns, but until now, candidates usually have made an effort to extend a live hand. With California’s Feb. 5 primary but a memory – and the campaigns long moved on to states from Louisiana to Maine and soon on to Ohio and Texas – stand-ins will be the best Californians will get. The campaigns aren’t looking for votes at this point, though. They want money.(SJ Merc 2/17/08)

California Matters, ahem, almost as much as Ohio. Honestly, I don’t think anybody could have predicted that we would go into March, or even April, for the nomination, but here we are, back in the rearview mirror, wondering who our nominee is going to be.

The Obama campaign is hoping to bring somebody along the lines of a former Sen. Bill Bradley, or somebody like that for a fundraiser, but no specifics were given. California will always have a net ouflow of political dollars. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. It’s just the way it’s going to be until the time comes when California is competitive again. I’m hoping that’s going to be a long time. So, man the ATM watch towers if you must, but let’s just make sure that California stays firmly in the blue column for the foreseeable future.  Thanks.

Why Do Gays and Latinos Support Hillary Clinton?

I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron.

As the Democratic Presidential race moves to California on February 5th, Senator Hillary Clinton holds the advantage in part because she leads Barack Obama among two crucial demographics: gays and Latinos.  But if these groups were more “results-oriented” about which candidate would bring about substantive change for their community, Obama could have an edge.  Clinton’s husband signed the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act when he was President, and she has only promised to scrap part 3 of DOMA – whereas Obama would repeal it entirely.  While both have waffled on giving drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants, when pressed to take a position Clinton said “no” and Obama said “yes.”  Gays and Latinos either don’t know such policy differences — or else have put them aside in favor of symbolic gestures, high name recognition or top-down endorsements.  Before it’s too late, LGBT and Latino voters must look at the issues, and decide which candidate would better pursue their interests.

Clinton vs. Obama and the LGBT Community:

It’s quite baffling why LGBT voters would strongly support Hillary Clinton – but the polls show that they largely do.  Queers loudly celebrated Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 because he pledged to lift the ban on gays in the military, but turned against him after he caved on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  Every progressive group can gripe that President Clinton let them down, but the LGBT community bears the distinction that he betrayed them first.

In 1996, Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – which banned federal rights like Social Security and immigration for same-sex couples, and allowed states to not recognize out-of-state gay marriages.  He signed it simply to deprive Bob Dole of a campaign issue, and did so at midnight while denouncing it as gay-bashing.  Days later, his re-election campaign advertised on Christian radio that he had signed it.

Like all Democratic candidates this year, Hillary Clinton has pledged to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.  She says that she’s been “on the record” opposing it since 1999 – which raises another question.  Her husband was still President back then, which means that she could have used her influence to have him repeal it.  While one could argue that the Clintons were on their way out, they could have put George Bush in the awkward position of restoring it once he took office.

Clinton says she would repeal Part 3 of DOMA (which deals with federal benefits), but would keep the rest.  That means she would let states discriminate against out-of-state couples, like what California did in 2000 by passing Proposition 22.  Her explanation leaves much to be desired: “marriage should be left to the states, and I believe that states are taking action on their own.”  Unmentioned was that outside of Massachusetts, the “state action” has been to pass anti-gay marriage amendments.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, would repeal DOMA entirely.  So LGBT voters who want to compare the two candidates’ platforms can determine who is better for them on the issues.  But Obama also angered queers last October when he campaigned in South Carolina with Rev. Donnie McClurkin – a black minister and self-proclaimed “former homosexual,” who believes it is his mission to turn gays straight.  Many of Obama’s gay supporters defected to the Clinton camp when they heard about this.

As an openly gay man, I cannot in good conscience defend what Obama did – and adding a gay black preacher to his campaign circuit after the backlash was pathetic.  However, queers must be “results oriented” when choosing a candidate.  Did Obama’s appearance with McClurkin take away any of our rights, and did it make it harder to achieve marriage equality?  What Obama did was symbolically offensive, but was it a substantive setback in getting the legislative accomplishments we strive for?

Due to her longer time in Washington, Clinton is closer to Beltway leaders in the LGBT community – which explains her many prominent endorsements.  The running joke about the Human Rights Campaign is that HRC stands for Hillary Rodham Clinton (though I prefer the moniker “homosexuals requiring cash.”)  But as the recent fury over ENDA have shown, many queers aren’t happy with their leadership.  Hopefully, they’ll take a closer look at the two leading Democratic candidates and make up their own mind.

Clinton vs. Obama on Latinos:

Clinton beat Obama by 2-1 among Latinos in the Nevada caucus – which bodes well for her in California.  Some of that is due to her higher name recognition, and the Clinton family’s longer history with Latinos.  In 1996, Bill Clinton speeded up the INS process for thousands of immigrants to become naturalized Americans – so they could vote that November.  Because Republicans were engaged in racist immigrant bashing, these (mostly Latino) new citizens voted Democrat in droves.

But anyone can see that Bill Clinton did this move out of pure self-interest to get re-elected.  I’m not Latino, but I was one of those immigrants who got my citizenship in 1996 due to the expedited process.  I was grateful at the time to vote in November, but what power do you really have if you just reward the politician who figured you would vote for him if you could?  The better question should be: did Bill Clinton do anything to substantively help immigrants in general, and Latinos in particular?

His record leaves much to be desired.  In 1996, Bill Clinton signed a punitive immigration bill that strengthened the deportation process and imposed mandatory minimum sentences.  He also signed Welfare Repeal – which eliminated Food Stamps and SSI benefits for legal immigrants.  Like DOMA, Clinton signed the Welfare Bill to deprive Bob Dole of a campaign issue – once again taking progressives for granted.

When asked about the Welfare Bill, Hillary Clinton replied that “the positives outweighed the negatives.”  She did not commit to making any changes besides expanding health care for children, whereas even her husband pledged to “fix” the more odious anti-immigrant provisions (while signing the bill anyway.)  How much did the Clinton Administration really fight to restore these cuts in Food Stamps and SSI after they were signed into law?

More importantly, what would a President Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama do to help immigrants and Latinos?  They both voted for the DREAM Act in the U.S. Senate – so that issue is basically a wash.  They also have similar voting records on increasing border patrol.  But there is a substantive difference between the two candidates on an issue of high importance to the Latino community: making drivers’ licenses available to undocumented immigrants.

At one debate several weeks ago, Clinton got in trouble for initially supporting New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s proposal – and then saying she did not.  After Spitzer withdrew his bill, she said she opposed the idea in principle.  “As President, I will not support driver’s licenses for undocumented people,” she said, “and will press for comprehensive reform that deals with all of the issues including border security and fixing our broken system.”

Obama has also danced around the issue, but to his credit did come out in favor.  “Undocumented workers do not come here to drive,” he said, “they’re here to work. Instead of being distracted by what has now become a wedge issue, let’s focus on solving the problem that the Bush administration has done nothing about it.”  When CNN’s Wolf Blitzer demanded that he give a simple “yes” or “no” answer, Obama said “yes.”

Like the LGBT leadership, Clinton enjoys top-down support from the Latino community’s elite.  Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, and UFW icon Dolores Huerta have all endorsed Hillary Clinton.  There’s no question that the Clinton campaign has done a better outreach job with Latinos that gave her a Nevada victory, and it’s been helped by having more surrogates.

But Obama’s beginning to catch up – and his Latino support is coming more from grassroots leaders at the bottom-up.  Labor leader Maria Elena Durazo has endorsed Obama, and took time off from her job to campaign for him in Nevada.  State Senator Gil Cedillo, who sponsored the California bill to give drivers’ license to undocumented immigrants, is also backing Obama.  The only question now is whether such support from the Latino community is too little, too late.

On February 5th, California will join 21 other states in voting on Super Duper Mega Tuesday on Steroids.  Candidates are frantically flying around the country to pick up votes – and under such circumstances, the establishment front-runner is likely to win.  But Clinton leads Obama among gays and Latinos who are not voting based upon real policy differences.  If they started to do so, we may get a very interesting surprise in the race in a few weeks.

Media Consolidation — brought to you by Reagan and Clinton

Media Reform Information Center

In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S.

in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. More than 1 in 4 Internet users in the U.S. now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world’s largest media corporation.

In 2004, Bagdikian’s revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations — Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch’s News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) — now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric’s NBC is a close sixth.

http://www.corporations.org/me…

——

Media Consolidation on NOW

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was created in 1934 with jurisdiction over radio, interstate telephone communication, and later television. But the FCC has always struggled with a fundamental lack of clarity about its proper functions. In its mission to serve the public interest, should the FCC crack down on indecency on the airwaves? Should it use its power to rescind the licenses of wayward stations?

Get background information on some of the FCC’s more recent decisions below:

   * The Fairness Doctrine

   * Media Regulation Timeline

   * Details of FCC Rule Changes

   * Local and National Media Ownership

http://www.pbs.org/now/politic…

——————-

Source: PBS Now

Media Regulation Timeline

1941

Local Radio Ownership Rule, National TV Ownership Rule enacted. A broadcaster cannot own television stations that reach more than 35% of the nation’s homes.

1946

Dual Television Network Rule enacted, prohibiting a major network from buying another major network.

1964

Local TV Multiple Ownership Rule enacted, prohibiting a broadcaster from owning more than one television station in the same market, unless there are at least eight stations in the market.

1981     [Reagan Presidency]

Reagan Administration deregulation under the leadership of FCC Chairman Mark Fowler. Deregulatory moves, some made by Congress, others by the FCC included extending television licenses to five years from three in 1981. The number of television stations any single entity could own grew from seven in 1981 to 12 in 1985.

1985     [Reagan Presidency]

Guidelines for minimal amounts of non-entertainment programming are abolished. FCC guidelines on how much advertising can be carried per hour are eliminated.

1987     [Reagan Presidency]

“Fairness Doctrine” eliminated. At its founding the FCC viewed the stations to which it granted licenses as “public trustee” – and required that they made every reasonable attempt to cover contrasting points of views.

1996     [Clinton Presidency]

President Clinton signs the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It is generally regarded as the most important legislation regulating media ownership in over a decade. The radio industry experiences unprecedented consolidation after the 40-station ownership cap is lifted.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politic…

——————-

The result?

Top Telecommunications, Media and Technology Companies



http://www.openairwaves.org/te…

——————-

Does Clinton regret the Media Merger Mania he unleashed?

It’s not clear:

Bill Clinton’s Take On Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal

8/6/2007

The Fallout From the Telecommunications Act of 1996

  * Lifted the limit on how many radio stations one company could own. The cap had been set at 40 stations. It made possible the creation of radio giants like Clear Channel, with more than 1,200 stations, and led to a substantial drop in the number of minority station owners, homogenization of play lists, and less local news.

  * Lifted from 12 the number of local TV stations any one corporation could own, and expanded the limit on audience reach. One company had been allowed to own stations that reached up to a quarter of U.S. TV households. The Act raised that national cap to 35 percent. These changes spurred huge media mergers and greatly increased media concentration. Together, just five companies – Viacom, the parent of CBS, Disney, owner of ABC, News Corp, NBC and AOL, owner of Time Warner, now control 75 percent of all prime-time viewing.

  * The Act gave broadcasters, for free, valuable digital TV licenses that could have brought in up to $70 billion to the federal treasury if they had been auctioned off. Broadcasters, who claimed they deserved these free licenses because they serve the public, have largely ignored their public interest obligations, failing to provide substantive local news and public affairs reporting and coverage of congressional, local and state elections.

  * The Act reduced broadcasters’ accountability to the public by extending the term of a broadcast license from five to eight years, and made it more difficult for citizens to challenge those license renewals.

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP…

——————-

The result?

Who owns the Media?



http://www.freepress.net/owner…

——————-

One Candidate has spoken out against this senseless consolidation of the Free Press — that Candidate is John Edwards

8/6/2007


John Edwards:

It’s time for all Democrats, including those running for president, to stand up and speak out against this [News Corp.-Dow Jones] merger and other forms of media consolidation.”

So far, Edwards is the only candidate to address this issue, and he deserves enormous credit for exhibiting such courage. The media is a potentially devastating enemy – just ask Howard Dean. However, Hillary Clinton has the greatest moral obligation to take a stand given what her husband saddled us with.

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP…

—-

And Edwards has paid the Price for telling the Truth to the American People!

The price tag:  being “Virtually Ignored” by the Media, and even being dropped from Candidate Polls, based on the arbitrary decisions of corporate Media Executives, and little else:



http://www.johnedwards.com/whe…

——-

Survey USA Drops Edwards Based on “Judgment”

by sarahlane – Jan 17, 2008

Unbelievable! CNN narrows the Field of Candidates!

by jamess – Jan 13, 2008

What is Edwards saying that they find so disturbing?

Edwards Comes Out Strongly Against Media Consolidation

Aug 2, 2007

Challenges Democratic presidential candidates to cut off contributions from News Corp Executives

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Today, Senator John Edwards spoke out strongly against media consolidation which threatens the health of our democracy, by calling on Democrats to openly oppose and take the necessary steps to stop the merger between News Corp and the Dow Jones Company/The Wall Street Journal. Edwards called on Democrats to oppose the merger in light of the biased and unfair manner Fox News, and other media arms of News Corp, cover Democrats and the Democratic Party.

News Corp’s purchase of the Dow Jones Co. and The Wall Street Journal should be the last straw when it comes to media consolidation. The basis of a strong democracy begins and ends with a strong, unbiased and fair media – all qualities which are pretty hard to subscribe to Fox News and News Corp. The reality is that Americans deserve more news outlets – not fewer. It’s time for all Democrats, including those running for president, to stand up and speak out against this merger and other forms of media consolidation.

http://www.johnedwards.com/new…

Al Gore, another Progressive Statesman, has also spoken out just as urgently against this “wild west” atmosphere for evermore Media Consolidation:

Gore Lashes Out at Media Consolidation

by Jill Lawless

August 28, 2006


“Democracy is under attack,” Gore told an audience at the Edinburgh International Television Festival. “Democracy as a system for self-governance is facing more serious challenges now than it has faced for a long time.

Democracy is a conversation, and the most important role of the media is to facilitate that conversation of democracy. Now the conversation is more controlled, it is more centralized.”

In the United States “the only thing that matters in American politics now is having enough money to put 30-second commercials on the air often enough to convince the voters to elect you or re-elect you,” he said. “The person who has the most money to run the most ads usually wins.”

http://www.commondreams.org/he…

—-

Where do the other Candidates stand on the FCC, Media Consolidation, and the Fairness Doctrine?

It would be nice to know!

(The Fairness Doctrine, by the way, pre-Reagan era, used to require ALL qualified Candidates, get Equal Air time from the broadcasters, in exchange for their very lucrative broadcasting licenses.)

Edwards has the guts to take a Stand and speak out, like Al Gore did

do they?

John Edwards pickets at NBC – WGA



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

—-

John Edwards:

“One of the things we have a problem with in America is the conglomeration and consolidation of the Media.

We need to make sure that diverse voices are being heard, and we don’t have that kind of consolidation because that’s a big part of the problem.”

If the Trends set in motion by Ronald Reagan, and continued by Bill Clinton, are allowed to proceed unchecked as they have for 2 decades, this is the likely Future we will face

Instead of the “Big Six” Media Conglomerates —

we’ll end up with  the “Titanic Two”

Fox and MSNBC!  (and just wait til they merge)

If you think the Media stinks now —

just stay tuned …

and now a word from those Sponsors,

those VERY Special Interests down at www.MediaLobbyists.Inc

underwritten and enabled by “Business as Usual” politicians, SPONSORS!