In memory of Nataline...

Nataline Sarkisyan, an innocent 17-year-old, died at a children's hospital last Thursday. Cigna, her insurance company, had approved of a liver transplant, but once Nataline had complications from a bone marrow transplant the insurer got cold feet and denied the claim, stating it was "experimental" despite receiving a letter from four doctors at Nataline's hospital which stated that not only was this not experimental, but that the liver transplant was needed to save her life.

Cigna reversed its decision last Thursday and granted the transplant, but unfortunately it was too late and Nataline died hours after the procedure was approved.

This has been one of the hardest things for me to deal with. I spoke with a very nice man in the public relations department at Cigna last Thursday afternoon on Nataline's behalf. I was one of hundreds who called and took the streets to demand that her insurance company pay this valid claim.

More eloquent folks than me have spoken out on this subject, and for anyone reading this one, lonely blog bobbing up and down on the waves of the information highway, I want you to hear them directly. Below are some YouTubes and links to articles and diaries explaining the background of this injustice and why it needs to be corrected.

CBS News:



nyceve's diary on Daily Kos regarding an email she received from a transplant surgeon, indicating a potential industry-wide practice of delay, delay, deny: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/22/131010/84/561/425556

Presidential candidate John Edwards "visibly angered" over this injustice: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/12/21/politics/fromtheroad/entry3641451.shtml

Videos from Nataline's brother and someone who was close to her (the second one taken at a birthday party for one of Nataline's friends):



The YouTube entry to this one simply states: "...This is the only video i have of Nataline in it. Rest In Peace now Beautiful Angel..."



Rest in peace, Nataline. We will remember you.

So What Did Obama Do?

As long as he's opened that door, The New York Times has decided to step right on through it. And you'll be amazed - in the Illinois senate he reversed himself from his current track record.

He showed up.

The problem is, he didn't want to make a decision once he got there.

From the article: (link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22335739/)

"In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.

In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator..."

Now in fairness, Camp Hope has tried to defend this record, saying it was part of a strategy. The article points to 36 times Obama voted "present" alone or with a group of less than six. Fifty-plus times it looks like he was "acting with other Democrats as a part of a strategy".

At issue, really, is whether he abused the "present" vote. From the article:

“...If you are worried about your next election, the present vote gives you political cover,” said Kent D. Redfield, a professor of political studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield. “This is an option that does not exist in every state and reflects Illinois political culture.”

And that seems to be what he did on the bill highlighted that would allow juveniles to be tried as adults.

I'm bringing all of this up because it seems that Camp Hope HQ is trying to insinuate that John Edwards's entire life experience - from litigating multinational corporations and big insurance companies in the cause of making injured people whole, to speaking out against Bill Clinton's impeachment, and even his personal battles of dealing with the death of his child and having a spouse with terminal cancer - amounts to nothing. Nada. Zilch.

"What have you done?" Arrogantly echoes through the halls of Camp Hope.

Well, when the going got tough what did Obama do? Chose a political duck-and-cover, assisting the bad by not helping the good. And he continues that courageous tradition of caving by voting to fund the war he so valiantly talked about opposing, and selling out working people by being a vocal proponent of the Peru Free Trade Agreement.

In the age of obfuscation and signing statements, that's the last kind of leadership we need in the White House.

Give me a leader who will at least stand up and take responsibility for all of his decisions, even the wrong ones. Give me a leader who can admit when he's wrong and work like heck to right that wrong.

I'll take that any day of the week over someone who wants to hold hands by the campfire, vote "here" when the tough decisions need to be made and who will *actively work* to continue an injustice that he knows is wrong.

These are trying times that call for a tough leader, not a political compromise.

John Edwards is that tough leader. Let's get him into that oval office. Now.

On King, Gandhi, Edwards And Why We Need To Fight

Nonviolence is not a cover for cowardice, but it is the supreme virtue of the brave. Exercise of nonviolence requires far greater bravery than that of swordsmanship. Cowardice is wholly inconsistent with nonviolence. Translation from swordsmanship to nonviolence is possible and, at times, even an easy stage. Nonviolence, therefore, presupposes ability to strike. It is a conscious deliberate restraint put upon one's desire for vengeance. But vengeance is any day superior to passive, effeminate and helpless submission.--Mohandas Gandhi

And I am sorry to say this morning that I am absolutely convinced that the forces of ill will in our nation, the extreme rightists of our nation—the people on the wrong side—have used time much more effectively than the forces of goodwill. And it may well be that we will have to repent in this generation. Not merely for the vitriolic words and the violent actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence and indifference of the good people who sit around and say, "Wait on time."--Martin Luther King, Jr.

King and Gandhi understood the importance of addressing injustice at the moment injustice is occurring. Both advocates of nonviolence, moved by the forces of Satyagraha and Agape Love, they were fighters to the end. Their weapon of choice was nonviolence, but not a passive, meek, "work within the system" nonviolence. King and Gandhi wielded nonviolence as a precise instrument of war for systemic change. All wars - violent and nonviolent - end at the negotiating table. What King and Gandhi understood was that nonviolence allowed someone to approach the negotiating table from a position of strength, and that the use of nonviolence would pave the way for a true peace, a lasting cessation of tensions that could be built on over time because the goal of nonviolence was to redeem both the oppressed and the oppressor.

Some folks like to think of Gandhi as a grandfatherly figure in traditional homespun garb. Some folks like to remember King saying "I have a dream" one day out of the year.

For me, I remember these men as fighters, warriors dedicated to the cause of justice.

I'm not going to put John Edwards - or indeed any presidential candidate - on the level of these two men. But my point is that when Edwards is talking about fighting insurance companies to address the massive injustice of millions of Americans going without healthcare, or making decisions between food and medicine, he's approaching that same path that was trailblazed by these two men years before.

Watch this interview - King was also criticized for his "aggressive" tactics, for not "biding his time, taking it step by step as it goes":



King's response? Privileged classes do not give up their privileges voluntarily. They do not give them up without strong resistance. All of the gains received in civil rights were because folks stood up aggressively in the cause of civil rights. There is an initial response of bitterness, but in the end there is redemption and reconciliation because justice has been achieved.

Now listen to what Edwards is saying about fighting to fix our broken system:



Regardless of who actually gets the Democratic nomination, or indeed who ends up being elected President, Edwards has one thing right: these folks are not going to give up their power voluntarily. It will be an epic battle to get our country back on track. With John Edwards in the White House those of us who want systemic change to fix our country will have a powerful ally.

This isn't about just electing one guy or gal to the job, packing up our stuff and watching American Idol re-runs for the next four years. This election is just one of many salvos in the fight for justice.

For me, a part of that fight is supporting John Edwards for President. Obviously, I'd like anyone reading this to consider supporting him as well.

But regardless of who you support, let's just be clear: after the elections we will have a fight on our hands, and let's joyfully join that cause.

John Edwards And A Revolution of Values

There are forty million poor people here, and one day we must ask the question, "Why are there forty million poor people in America?"

snip

We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life's marketplace. (Yes) But one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.--Martin Luther King, Jr. "Where Do We Go From Here?"; August, 1967

link: http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/speeches/Where_do_we_go_from_here.html

"With an increase in Americans without health insurance by two million to 47 million, nearly 37 million Americans still living in poverty and continued high levels of inequality, the need for fundamental change in our government is obvious.--John Edwards, Statement on New Census Data On Poverty in America, August, 2007

link: http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/poverty/20070828-poverty-data/

Martin Luther King, Jr. was a holistic thinker, and someone who saw the problems plaguing mankind through the prism of the inter-related, triple evils of racism, poverty and war. In speaking out against the Vietnam War, King called for the United States to engage in one, final systemic change which he called a "revolution of values" ( http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/058.html ):

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life's roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth.

All of our Democratic candidates have great ideas and policies to help us right the ship of the nation after eight disasterous years. But for my money - and more than that, for my time, support and dedication - John Edwards has the holistic vision that can help us achieve that revolution of values that King called our nation to embrace over forty years ago.

Civil rights leaders, from Martin Luther King III, to Jesse Jackson, to Harry Belafonte, have praised Edwards for concentrating on the poor. This isn't because this is just one more issue in governance by laundry list. What these civil rights leaders realize is that when you focus on poverty it forces you to view our society in a fundamentally different way. Indeed, it makes you question the *ediface that produces poverty*.

In making poverty a central issue of his campaign - against advice from pundits and advisors and all of those smart folks who feel that this is just a downer issue - Edwards has shown his commitment to this revolution of values by laying out detailed policies on how we can reach this goal:

Creating a Working Society
Edwards has outlined a Working Society initiative to lift 12 million Americans out of poverty in a decade and beat poverty over the next 30 years. In the Working Society, everyone who is able to work hard will be expected to work and, in turn, be rewarded for it. The initiative includes major new policies in the areas of work, housing, education, debt and savings, and family responsibility.

If you visit his issues page, Edwards outlines specifics behind this vision, including increasing the minimum wage, creating stepping stone jobs and making it easier for workers to unionize: http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/poverty/

Our country needs a change of direction, but more than that we are still in need of a revolution of values. By addressing the issue of poverty, Edwards is putting us on that road. Harry Belafonte expressed this last week when he endorsed Edwards for President:

"I also happen to believe that had he not so forcefully and precisely put the issue of poverty into this campaign, I don't think we'd be talking aobut it as much as we are," Belafonte said.

Our revolution of values shouldn't start next year, next decade or in the middle of someone's second term. It needs to start today. For me, that's why I'm supporting Edwards and volunteering for him in the following weeks. I'd like to invite folks to take a look at Edwards and if you agree, help him win the nomination and then the Presidency.

Let's be the change we want to see.

The Shining City Upon A Hill Is A Gated Community

It isn't class warfare to talk about this - this is the truth. --John Edwards, DNC Winter Meeting Speech

But story, or legend, he described the atmosphere, the strain, the debate, and that as men for the first time faced the consequences of such an irretrievable act, the walls resounded with the dread word of treason and its price -- the gallows and the headman's axe. As the day wore on the issue hung in the balance, and then, according to the story, a man rose in the small gallery. He was not a young man and was obviously calling on all the energy he could muster. Citing the grievances that had brought them to this moment he said, “Sign that parchment. They may turn every tree into a gallows, every home into a grave and yet the words of that parchment can never die. For the mechanic in his workshop, they will be words of hope, to the slave in the mines -- freedom.”--Ronald Reagan, The Shining City Upon A Hill

John Edwards is delivering the long-overdue Democratic response to Reagan's speech, The Shining City Upon A Hill. Long lauded by conservatives as one of Reagan's seminal speeches, it interlaces an American nostaglia steeped in mysticism with concepts now foreign to the GOP, things like "even a land as rich as ours can't go on forever borrowing against the future", and a reverence for the Constitution as "probably the most unique document ever drawn in the long history of man's relation to man", and "never again will young Americans be asked to fight and possibly die for a cause unless that cause is so meaningful that we, as a nation, pledge our full resources to achieve victory as quickly as possible." Talk about the party of flip-flops!

But I digress.

Reagan also presents in this speech the case for trickle-down economics being in the best interest *of working men and women*:

Standardization means production for the masses and the assembly line means more leisure for the worker -- freedom from backbreaking and mind-dulling drudgery that man had known for centuries past. Karl Marx did not abolish child labor or free the women from working in the coal mines in England – the steam engine and modern machinery did that.

snip

One-half of all the economic activity in the entire history of man has taken place in this republic. We have distributed our wealth more widely among our people than any society known to man. Americans work less hours for a higher standard of living than any other people. Ninety-five percent of all our families have an adequate daily intake of nutrients -- and a part of the five percent that don't are trying to lose weight! Ninety-nine percent have gas or electric refrigeration, 92 percent have televisions, and an equal number have telephones. There are 120 million cars on our streets and highways -- and all of them are on the street at once when you are trying to get home at night. But isn't this just proof of our materialism -- the very thing that we are charged with? Well, we also have more churches, more libraries, we support voluntarily more symphony orchestras, and opera companies, non-profit theaters, and publish more books than all the other nations of the world put together.

Reaganomics was always framed in terms of the benefit to the *common man*. Reagan himself pitched people on its acceptance as choosing "freedom over security".

Recent history has proven him wrong. In all aspects of the abject failure of "small government", ranging from the failure to rebuild Iraq, the still-muddled response to Katrina, the mortgage crisis, the almost-weekly announcement of another toxic substance in your toddler's apple juice or lead paint on his beloved toy, history has shown us the problem of pursuing Reagan's myth-filled vision to its logical conclusion.

Now is the time to deliver the Democratic response to Reagan's flawed policies. This past week, John Edwards did exactly that, both at the DNC Winter Meeting and at the Heartland Presidential Forum:



Edwards is answering nostaglia with reality. The Shining City Upon A Hill has become a gated community, excluding most Americans from its promise:

There's a wall outside Washington and we need to take it down. The American people are on the outside. And on the other side, on the inside, are the powerful, the well-connected and the very wealthy. That wall didn't build itself or appear overnight. For decades politicians without conviction and powerful interests gathered their bricks and their stones and their motar, and they went to work. They went to work to protect their interests, to block the voice of the American people, and to stop our country's progress. They went to work to protect, and defend, and maintain the status quo.

snip

Every single day, working men and women see that wall when they have to split their bills into two piles, pay now and pay later; when they watch the factory door shut for the last time; when they see the disappointment on their son or daughter's face when there's no money to pay for college. Every single day they see that wall when they have to use the emergency room as a doctor's office for their son because they can't afford to pay for healthcare.

And the Republicans, the party of Reagan who once at least at one time connected with working men and women? Where are they now?

In denial. They've been living inside that gated community for so long they've forgotten there's a world that exists outside its walls:



Now isn't the time to only ask ourselves, "who can beat the Republicans". Don't get me wrong, I would like to see a win for the Democrats in 2008 just as much as many other people in our party.

There's a deeper, more fundamental question that we have to confront: who can undo the harm that the Republicans have left us with? Who can reverse the extremist philosophies that have eroded the promise of America for so many of its citizens?

John Edwards is showing a clear, competing vision to extremist neocon doctrines that have ruled the GOP and our country:

We have a choice in this election. We can keep trying to shout over that wall. We can keep trying to knock out a chink here and there, to punch little holes in it and hope to get our voices through. We can settle for baby-steps, or half measures and incremental change, and try and inch our way over that wall or toward a better future.

Or we can knock it down.

Let's knock that wall down, together.

Edwards: 1, Republicans: 0

What does a candidate who takes strong positions, tells folks he won't back down and whose campaign is fueled by a progressive populist agenda get?

Votes.

He also wins over Republicans after they watch *their own party's* debate:





Someone like Jim Geraghty at National Review may whine, saying "where do they find these people?" ( http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTM4Y2ZiY2MyMTZjMTI5OGM3NWE1OTRjNThhMjY0YzE= ) but it's clear that even older Republicans are ready for someone to stand up and finally lead this country.

I'm an Edwards supporter. I've written my fare share of diaries praising him when he's given great speeches or hit home runs at Democratic debates.

But I've never been given the opportunity to do some candidate cheerleading after a debate where the candidate didn't even show up.

This is sweet.

MLK, Global Warming And The Need For Systemic Change

Through our scientific and technological genius, we have made of this world a neighborhood and yet we have not had the ethical commitment to make of it a brotherhood. But somehow, and in some way, we have got to do this. We must all learn to live together as brothers or we will all perish together as fools. We are tied together in the single garment of destiny, caught in an inescapable network of mutuality. And whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. For some strange reason I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. And you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be. This is the way God’s universe is made; this is the way it is structured. --Martin Luther King, Jr. "Remaining Awake Through A Great Revolution"

Many researchers, led by scientists like NASA's James Hansen, now agree that an increase in global average temperature beyond 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit could constitute a "tipping point" leading to irreversible, extreme climate changes. If global carbon emissions continue to rise, principally from coal-fired power plants and cars, the Earth could easily reach that point by 2050.

In ominous tones, the report agrees: "Human activities could lead to abrupt or irreversible climate changes and impacts. The risks are related to the rate and magnitude of the climate change." -- "A Little Time Left On Global Warming", New Jersey Star Ledger, November 16th, 2007

Martin Luther King, Jr. is known for many things: his leadership of the civil rights movement, his outspokenness against the war in Vietnam and even his support of unions and advocacy of the poor. What he is less known for is the way that he looked at things, how he saw all life as interconnected.

And how he eschewed the "drug of gradualism" and incremental change.

Take for instance his response to a group of local clergy in Birmingham, Alabama, which was later published as the "Letter From A Birmingham Jail". The clergy had argued to King to push for small, incremental change. Why couldn't King just quietly negotiate? King outlined for them the attempts at negotiations:

Then came the opportunity last September to talk with some of the leaders of the economic community. In these negotiating sessions certain promises were made by the merchants—such as the promise to remove the humiliating racial signs from the stores. On the basis of these promises Rev. Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to call a moratorium on any type of demonstrations. As the weeks and months unfolded we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. The signs remained. Like so many experiences of the past we were confronted with blasted hopes, and the dark shadow of a deep disappointment settled upon us.

Basically, King is telling them: we met, promises were made, and nothing happened. And instead of waiting, and talking, and meeting some more, we need to push for change now. This doesn't mean "don't negotiate". What it means is negotiate from a position of moral strength. As King continues:

Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue.

Nonviolent direct action doesn't always mean literally taking to the streets. The King Center's online guide to the Six Steps of Nonviolence lists several different ways to take direct action (link: http://www.thekingcenter.org/prog/non/6steps.html ). They can be as large and visible and strikes or walk outs, or as individual as letter writing campaigns...or as public as proposing legislation to remove a basic human right like access to health care from members of Congress until universal health care for all is achieved.

But I digress.

The politics in Birmingham that King mentions at the time are relevant. The City of Birmingham had just held elections, and the new administration was more tolerant, more forward-looking than the last. Why, oh why, Dr. King, couldn't you just restart the negotiations with this new administration?

Here is King's response (my emphasis added):

The only answer that I can give to this inquiry is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one before it acts. We will be sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Mr. Boutwell will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is much more articulate and gentle than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to the task of maintaining the status quo. The hope I see in Mr. Boutwell is that he will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from the devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. History is the long and tragic story of the fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups are more immoral than individuals.

So, negotiating small incremental change with individual people of good will does not result in the course correction needed to address an injustice. As King wisely noted, even though some key players may be on your side, groups are more immoral than individuals.

Fine. So, what do we do? Throw up our hands? Not at all...

You go back to the Six Steps of Nonviolence - I'll outline them for you here:

1. Information Gathering
2. Education
3. Personal Commitment
4. Negotiations
5. Direct Action
6. Reconciliation

And you ask yourself: did I gather all of the information I needed to understand both the dynamics of the problem, the root causes of the problem and is my proposal going to address these root causes, or will it just be a simple band-aid? Have I educated others regarding what the problem is, and what I intend to do to fix it? Have I broadcast my intentions loudly enough so folks know what I want to do and how I plan on doing it? Am I committed enough to my cause? Am I prepared for any slings and arrows coming my way? Have I tried to dialogue with my opponents, and confront them to discuss the problem and the solutions? Have I understood where they are coming from, and is it possible to find common ground? And finally...how effective was my direct action? Did it apply the pressure needed to get the parties back to negotiate?

If you go through these steps, King believed, you will find reconciliation. This is a true peace, where the ultimate outcome is removing the systemic problem that created the injustice.

This is systemic change.

You use systemic change when you have a systemic problem...and ain't no bigger systemic problem today on the planet than global warming. It touches every aspect of our lives, from the food we eat, to the clothes we wear, how we get to and from work, how our children are educated, what our foreign policy is, and even what each of our domestic household budgets look like.

You can't solve a systemic problem like this with incremental change. You can't just tweak the status quo a little here, and a little there, and expect to deal with the *root causes* of this issue. It's too massive to be dealt with incrementally.

That's why, in my humble opinion, Senator Clinton is *dead wrong* when she says "incremental change is the way to go" to handle this issue:

Incremental change is the only way to go unless there’s some major event like Pearl Harbor or 9/11: if Al Gore had been president, we would have had an energy and climate change program after 9/11. But ultimately, it’s imperative we get something passed and implement it, so that we can persuade Americans that it won’t be disruptive or lower their standard of living, but will actually create jobs and do good. We'll have to put together a smart coalition to withstand the attacks that will come. I'm aware of the difficulty, but I feel confident.

Link and a nod to thereisnospoon, as I have been unable to find a transcript of Senator Clinton's remarks independent of the one he provided from live blogs: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/19/62124/121

King's admonition of the fierce urgency of now could not be any more relevant today then when he spoke these words almost forty years ago when he delivered his "Beyond Vietnam" sermon at the Riverside Church:

We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity. The "tide in the affairs of men" does not remain at the flood; it ebbs. We may cry out deperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is deaf to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residue of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: "Too late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on..."

Why We Can Do Better Than Hillary

I've been cruising the blogs for some time now, and I've always been intrigued at the ardent Hillary Clinton supporters I've found on the web. I'm intrigued because, frankly, they're some of the angriest people out there.

My purely anecdotal experience in talking with some of these folks is their number one, big, huge, over-riding reason for supporting Hillary Clinton is not that she will push for the changes necessary to address things like Iraq, health care and global warming. It is not that she will address the gross economic inequities that have lead to working folks barely able to get by. It isn't that she'll even do anything about our outrageous gas prices or halt the spread of the Iraq war to neighboring states like Iran.

It's that...she'll rub the Rethuglican's noses in it. Yes, I am using the term "Rethuglican" because more often than not this is how these folks refer to our fellow human beings who register themselves with the GOP. While Hillary Clinton herself speaks of the wonders of compromise, and incremental change, and How Lobbyists Are People, Too, her most ardent supporters are pinning their hopes and dreams on the day that they can turn to their conservative coworkers at the water cooler and give them the glare that says "we beat you, stuff it!"

Forget issue oriented politics. Forget the fact that you might actually need the support of some of these folks in order to govern.

Forget the fact that it is our system that is the problem: the lobbyists who corrupt it; the corporate media who acquiesces to it and the politcians who have a vested interest in business as usual.

No, let's all turn our hatred and ire on our brothers and sisters who are struggling to make ends meet, who also have a vested interest in fixing global warming and who also want us to get out of Iraq like it was yesterday. Let's engage in the same politics of division that we've been doing for the past eight years, but this time let's put a Democrat in office. That'll show 'em.

And while we're so busy "showing 'em", the artic ice cap will continue to melt, soldiers and civilians will continue to die in Iraq and possibly Iran, millions of families will not be able to get the health care we need and our corrupted system will still let in lead-enhanced toddler toys and toxic apple juice in the name of unfettered, unregulated free trade.

Democrats: we are better than this. Yes, it is right to be outraged at the state of our nation right now. But let's direct the outrage at the folks who deserve it: the corporate lobbyists who have corrupted our democractic system and the politicians that have let them do it. Don't be horn-swaggled into thinking that one-upping Bob at the office will make your life any better. Bob ain't your problem.

The problem lies with politicians who excuse the corrupt system, who think that small, incremental change and protecting the status quo is the way to make our country better.

We are better than this. We can elect politicians that are better than this. We can elect folks like John Edwards, who understand that you can't accept big money and expect big change.

Let's take our country back. Now.

Diamonds and Pearls and Corporations O My!

What a difference some pre-planning makes. During the last debate the last five minutes were actually pretty darn interesting, filled with discussions on issues...or at least trying to sort out exactly where the front runner stood on the issues.

And tonight? What was The Final, Great Question of the Evening, the One On Everyone's Minds? Why, it was...

Does Hillary Clinton favor diamonds or pearls?

Oh, my!

I have a nasty internal cynic. It jumps out at me from time to time, regardless of how well I try to squelch its gleeful moroseness. Tonight it was in full force.

Before listening to the debates I heard an interesting rumor floating around the blogosphere that John Edwards was going to participate in the Writer's Guild of America strike tomorrow. Wow, I thought to myself, that's really walking your talk. How great to have a Presidential candidate walk off of a debate and onto a picket line.

And then...the debate started. Edwards shoved to the far corner of the floor. Hillary and Obama front and center. The thunderous applause for Senator Clinton as she walked in the room.

My internal cynic pounced:

"Look!" It cried, mouth agape. "He's supporting the writer's strike, and CNN is owned by Time Warner. The fix is in!"

"No." I reasoned with it, stroking its forehead. "That's just random. Bad luck of the draw. There's nothing untoward happening."

And then the debate went on. And on. And on. No real interaction between the candidates. Edwards using the brief time he was allotted to make stunningly transcendent statements about the need to make this debate about something greater than who got whom, and focus on the folks out there who need our help. To finally get some backbone and fight for what's right.

As the minutes dripped away my internal cynic groused around, kicking the cobwebs in my head as it complained about the lack of time given to Edwards, and Wolf Blitzer's failure to follow up to get clarity on anything from the Democratic frontrunner.

Finally, my internal cynic and I sat and listened with rapt attenion as Barack Obama was able to corner Hillary Clinton on an upstate-New York, Westchester County elitism that holds that someone making over $90,000 is "middle class", when that defines only 6% of the folks living in this country. Hillary started to try to say that this was really about her constituents and then -

We cut to commercial. A commercial about a hedge fund protecting the wealth of a fictional woman who owns multiple luxury properties in multiple countries.

"But wait just a little while longer." I insisted, as my internal cynic writhed in the painful irony of it all. "The really important part of the last debate was in the last few minutes. There's still time."

And then, in the last few minutes, a young girl in the audience asked...if Hillary Clinton Preferred Diamonds or Pearls.

Don't you hate it when your internal cynic is right?

A Short Rant About Health Care And The Media

Millions of people have no health care insurance in our country right now. Millions more have "junk insurance", that doesn't cover what they need to have covered when they get sick. Millions more are holding off on retiring because they can't afford the health care coverage on their own.

And then there's working folks like my husband and myself who are seeing our net pay decrease, even after cost of living raises, due to ever increasing health care costs.

That's the problem. Here's John Edwards's solution:



"...When I'm president I'm going to say to members of Congress and members of my administration, including my Cabinet: I'm glad that you have health care coverage and your family has health care coverage. But if you don't pass universal health care by July of 2009, in six months, I'm going to use my power as president to take your health care away from you. There's no excuse for politicians in Washington having health care when you don't have health care."

And here's Big Media's Retreat From Our Health Care Debate:

"...While a President Edwards could mount public pressure based on the 47 million Americans who lack health insurance, Congress is, to put it mildly, unlikely to relinquish its own coverage. In fact, some experts argue that such a law would violate the 27th Amendment's ban on "varying the compensation" of members of Congress without an intervening election. Schultz said Edwards would ask senior administration officials to voluntarily give up their health coverage if he fails to pass universal coverage..."

Link: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail /2007/11/13/edwards_impossible_promise.h tml

So, let me get this straight. There's an injustice of epic proportions happening in this country, because millions of our citizens can't get the health care they need.

And we can't fix that because...proposing legislation to Congress to remove their own health care coverage until the rest of us poor schlubs have it is unconstitutional?

Run that past me again?

Didn't we have a little thing in this country called a revolution? Wasn't a part of that whole thing addressing the denial of basic rights and freedoms for everyone, not just protecting them for the very few in charge of the government?

Isn't access to health care a basic right? Shouldn't that be protected by our Constitution?

When our Constitution was unjust in the past, or failed to address an injustice, we changed it. And if you're telling me that the Constitution currently promotes an injustice - by allowing some folks to have access to a basic right that is simultaneously denied to others - isn't it time to change the Constitution?

When our country was comprised of small printing presses, folks like Thomas Paine used them to promote the radical ideas of freedom and liberty, and the idea that you don't have to be a member of the ruling class to have access to basic rights.

Now our country's media is run by megalith corporations who distribute their news and opinion pieces via broadcast, cable, satellite and the internet, in addition to the good, old fashioned printing press. And instead of using this power to argue for basic rights and freedoms, they are now arguing exactly the opposite: that those in charge of our government should have access to a basic right that ordinary citizens do not have guaranteed access to...because they are in the government.

My how times have changed.

John Edwards: Toward A New, Democratic Politics

The in-tuned blogosphere already knows a lot about John Edwards: the endorsements he's received by state SEIU chapters including the important states of Iowa and New Hampshire; the endorsement by Friends of the Earth and the most recent endorsement by Iowans for Sensible Priorities. Folks are also aware of his calls for an end to the corrupt system in Washington, D.C., a system he defines as being "rigged" against all of us people who work for a living.

At first blush, this may seem like smart politics. Appealing to the base. Riding the wave of middle class anger. But there's something a lot more profound going on here, something that is an anti-Bush, Rove-free approach to democratic politics.

Come follow me and I'll tell you what I mean...

If you're going to try to fix a problem or address an injustice, there's a few ways to go about it. You could, for instance, focus on the immediate problem at hand and do a lessons-learned analysis (for instance, not putting a well-connected but incompetent fellow in charge of FEMA, and just hope that disaster doesn't strike). You could also do some investigations to try and examine the immediate causes of the injustice (for instance, holding hearings on how billions of dollars were just misplaced in Iraq, never to be heard from again). Or, you could try to look at the whole mess holistically, peel away the layers and get to the core issue. You could also look at where we are, where we need to be and set out a roadmap for how to get there.

That's what Edwards is doing, and that's what makes him a truly unique candidate...especially if you want *change*.

Peruse the Edwards website and you'll come across the issues page: http://johnedwards.com/issues/ . On that issues page you'll see the following three main areas, with links to specific policy proposals:

1. Standing up for Regular Families, including links to policy proposals for universal healthcare, poverty, policies to improve the quality of life in rural America, strengthen food safety and other policies and programs that reach out to and improve the quality of life for the individual.

2. Restoring America's Leadership Role In The World. Here you'll find Edwards's foreign policy and proposals that shape how our nation is viewed across the world, including the areas of Iraq, Iran, terrorism, civil liberties and global poverty (for my own analysis of Edwards's foreign policy, including his firm stance against preventive war, please see this diary: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/6/17523/4824 ).

3. Investing In Our Future And Our Communities, an area which addresses policies and proposals that impact health and well-being of the community at large, including the areas of global warming, education, open media, veterans and civil rights.

All three of these main areas affect each other, and all of the policies inside of these three areas also impact other policies. Everything is inter-related. All of the pieces and parts of the proposals need to work together in harmony in order to create the systemic change we need to reclaim our country.

Finally, none of this can happen, none of this systemic change can take place unless we remove the influence of lobbyist money in politics. Bill Bradley outlines in this in this June, 2007 talk on how the influence of lobbyists can corrupt these policies through an "unstated connection" between the contribution and the result of that contribution:



Sure, John Edwards is a great orator, and there's wonderful speakers across the field of Democratic presidential candidates. But to get systemic change you need more than just speeches: you need well thought-out policies and proposals so you can hit the ground running and start creating that change as soon as you're elected. You need a roadmap, and Edwards provides an impressive one that shows us the steps we can take to fix our problems, take care of our citizens and become a respected member of the community of nations once again.

What is John Edwards's Foreign Policy?

Here’s what they mean by preventive war—if we see a possible threat, we go to war; we don’t exhaust diplomatic, political, and economic options, we go straight to war. Under this Bush doctrine, military force is no longer the option of last resort.

snip

Now, I want to be very clear about something. I believe very strongly that any commander-in-chief must retain the right to respond with appropriate force when there’s real intelligence about an imminent threat to America.

But there is a difference between doing everything in our power to keep America safe and a reckless, belligerent policy that actually makes us less safe. The preventive war doctrine was a stunning departure from the policy that had kept America safe during both world wars and during the Cold War. It is wrong on the merits, wrong on the morals, and wrong for America.

From John Edwards's "Learning the Lesson of Iraq: A New Strategy for Iran". Link: http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/11/5/122520/049

I've seen a number of diaries lately question what John Edwards's foreign policy vis a vis Iran would be. Would he invade Iran? What does "leaving all options on the table" really mean in our post 9/11, post-Bush the Younger world?

The purpose of this diary is to discuss Edwards's foreign policy, both in broadstroke and specifically with regard to Iraq, Iran and terrorism. The purpose of this diary is not to play "gotcha". No other candidates will be "called out". These are literally life and death issues as they deal with war and peace, and my hope is that we treat them with the proper amount of gravity and respect that they deserve.

Removing the Bush Doctrine of "Preventive War"

That being said, let's start with broadstrokes. Edwards is a multilateralist, which basically means he favors a "concert of nations" approach to international conflict resolution. Whether discussing Iran, Iraq or terrorism, or indeed other transnational issues like Global Warming or poverty, Edwards leads with statements like the one he wrote in his essay for Foreign Affairs:

Rather than alienating the rest of the world through assertions of infallibility and demands of obedience, as the current administration has done, U.S. foreign policy must be driven by a strategy of reengagement. We must reengage with our history of courage, liberty, and generosity. We must reengage with our tradition of moral leadership on issues ranging from the killings in Darfur to global poverty and climate change. We must reengage with our allies on critical security issues, including terrorism, the Middle East, and nuclear proliferation. With confidence and resolve, we must reengage with those who pose a security threat to us, from Iran to North Korea. And our government must reengage with the American people to restore our nation's reputation as a moral beacon to the world, tapping into our fundamental hope and optimism and calling on our citizens' commitment and courage to make this possible. We must lead the world by demonstrating the power of our ideals, not by stoking fear about those who do not share them.

Link: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86502-p0/john-edwards/reengaging-with-the-world.html

This is in contrast to the Bush administration, which favors a unilateralist approach in any conflict they really want to take on (note that the glaring exception of this is North Korea, which the Bush administration in my opinion has just simply placed on the back burner, in favor of utilizing their time and resources in trying to clean up Iraq, escalate the conflict with Iran and deal with all of the known and unknown knowns and unknowns that arise along the way).

In September, 2002, President Bush put on paper his administration's policy of "preventive war". This doctrine holds that the United States can take action against threats "before they are fully formed", which flies in the face of years of international jurisprudence regarding the right of a State to defend itself from imminent attack. As the Brookings Institute explained:

The concept is not limited to the traditional definition of preemption—striking an enemy as it prepares an attack—but also includes prevention—striking an enemy even in the absence of specific evidence of a coming attack. The idea principally appears to be directed at terrorist groups as well as extremist or "rogue" nation states; the two are linked, according to the strategy, by a combination of "radicalism and technology.

As quoted in "Preventive War and International Law After Iraq", link: http://www.globelaw.com/Iraq/Preventive_war_after_iraq.htm

It is this doctrine of preventive war that Edwards railed against in his Foreign Affairs article when he called the "War on Terror" a "bumpersticker":

But I believe we must stay on the offensive against both terrorism and its causes. The "war on terror" approach has backfired, straining our military to the breaking point while allowing the threat of terrorism to grow. "War on terror" is a slogan designed for politics, not a strategy to make the United States safe. It is a bumper sticker, not a plan. Worst of all, the "war on terror" has failed. Instead of making the United States safer, it has spawned even more terrorism -- as we have seen so tragically in Iraq -- and left us with fewer allies.

He has also specifically stated that the doctrine of preventive war has no safe haven in an Edwards administration:

First and foremost, we need to ensure that the preventive war doctrine goes where it belongs—the trash-heap of history. As he has done with so much else, Vice President Al Gore got it right about the preventive war doctrine. In 2002—the same year that George Bush introduced his preventive war doctrine—Gore made a speech at the Commonwealth Club in California. He said, and I quote, “What this doctrine does is to destroy the goal of a world in which states consider themselves subject to law, particularly in the matter of standards for the use of violence against each other. That concept would be displaced by the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the President of the United States.”

These are especially chilling words to read five years later—after Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and the president’s refusal to condemn torture, and they are particularly relevant to the situation with Iran.

link: http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/11/5/122520/049

The only instance Edwards would use force in a pre-emptive strike is in the instance of imminent threat, and he would therefore return the United States to the norms of accepted international law with regard to the use of force.

Terrorism

So, how would an Edwards administration deal with an issue like international terrorism? By using a multilateral approach to deal not just with security and counter-terrorism, but also with systemic issues like poverty that help terrorism to take root. He plans to implement this multilateral approach through a newly formed organization, the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization (CITO):

Every nation has an interest in shutting down terrorism. CITO will create connections between a wide range of nations on terrorism and intelligence, including countries on all continents, including Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe. New connections between previously separate nations will be forged, creating new possibilities.

CITO will allow members to voluntarily share financial, police, customs and immigration intelligence. Together, nations will be able to track the way terrorists travel, communicate, recruit, train, and finance their operations. And they will be able to take action, through international teams of intelligence and national security professionals who will launch targeted missions to root out and shut down terrorist cells.

The new organization will also create a historic new coalition. Those nations who join will, by working together, show the world the power of cooperation. Those nations who join will also be required to commit to tough criteria about the steps they will take to root out extremists, particularly those who cross borders. Those nations who refuse to join will be called out before the world.

It's important to note that CITO is not a panacea, nor will it be perfect. But it would represent the first step in a new direction. As President John F. Kennedy observed when he signed the treaty that first limited the testing of nuclear weapons, we must begin with the common recognition of a common danger. President Kennedy said then, "A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step." Today, this new anti-terrorism organization would be such a first step.

link: http://www.johnedwards.com/news/speeches/a-new-strategy-against-terrorism/

Think of CITO as a NATO that is specifically tasked to fight global terrorism. Is it needed? Absolutely. Global terrorism is our generation's Cold War - it probably won't go away within our lifetimes and it is a big enough and - with enhanced global communication technology - a new enough threat to warrant an international organization of people who live, breath and eat how to combate it within the rule of international law (instead of leaving it up to the next belligerent superpower to sort out on their ownsome).

For the snapshot of Edwards's full plan to combat terrorism, visit his issues page here: http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/terrorism/

Iraq

In-tuned and hep bloggers are probably most familiar with this part of Edwards's foreign policy, so I'll be brief: immediate draw-down of 40,000-50,000 combat troops, a cessastion of combat missions and a standing force to protect the embassy and humanitarian endeavors in country.

For more of Edwards's Iraq policy, visit his issues page here: http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/iraq/

Iran

The main thing that sticks out for me in Edwards's approach to Iran is his insistence on including Russia and China in dealing with Iran as part of his consistent multilateralism:

We must work with China and Russia on the problem of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Both nations have economic relationships with Iran on trade and energy. But both nations also have a strong interest in stability in the Middle East. And neither nation wants the nuclear club to expand. In the first year of my administration, I will convene a conference with my Secretary of State and representatives from the “E.U. 3”—Great Britain, France, and Germany—Russia, China—and Iran, to discuss a way out of the stalemate of the Bush administration.

link: http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/11/5/122520/049

The problem with the current sanctions authorized under Kyl-Lieberman and implemented by the Bush administration is that they are practically unilateral in nature. Couple this with the Bush doctrine of preventive war, and you have a number of our European allies uncomfortable in backing them, Russia and China not supporting them at all and Iran defiantly saying they will have no effect on their nuclear program (check out news articles on this here: http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSL3051339620071106 and here: http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=182484&version=1&template_id=37&parent_id=17 ).

Indeed, John Bolton, the Mighty Moustache, the Guy Who Roots for Diplomacy to fail, gleefully opined in today's New York Post:

I believe it was obvious from the outset that Iran wasn't going to renounce its quest for nuclear weapons voluntarily because it was part of a much larger strategy. The stakes were and are high: whether Iran and its radical Shiite version of Islam become dominant throughout the Muslim world, whether largely Persian Iran achieves effective hegemony in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East and whether a nuclear, terror-financing Iran emerges on the global stage as a real power.

snip

Regime change in Iran is the preferred option, and a feasible one given the regime's weakness. Rampant economic discontent caused by 28 years of economic mismanagement, the desires of younger Iranians to be freed from the mullahs' theology and dissatisfaction among Iran's ethnic minorities are all fertile breeding grounds for discontent. If we had supported and encouraged this dissent for the last four years, we might now be on the verge of regime change.

Absent regime change, the targeted use of force against Iran's program is the only option left. Risky and unattractive as it is, the choice may well be between the use of force and a nuclear Iran, which is really not a choice at all. Iran is already asserting itself in ways profoundly hostile to our interests and those of our close friends. Imagine adding Iranian nuclear weapons to that equation. That's why surrender is not an option.

link: http://www.nypost.com/seven/11062007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/dithering_diplomats_959824.htm?page=0

The issue with regard to Iran is this: do you really believe the Bush administration is willing and able to use sanctions in order to competently pursue diplomacy that results in peaceful conflict resolution? If not...don't give them the ability to escalate this conflict through practically unilateral sanctions, as it gives guys like Bolton just more air in their lungs to pronounce the Death of Diplomacy.

For more on Edwards's policy regarding Iran, visit this link: http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/iran/

Bottom line: a multilateral approach to conflict resolution, that removes the doctrine of preventive war and returns the United States to operating within the standards of international law is sorely needed right now, and this is the foreign policy Edwards is proposing. As Edwards stated in his recent speech on Iran:

In his first inaugural speech, in 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt rejected the failed Republican policy of military intervention in Latin America and Europe. Instead, he told the nation, we should “dedicate this Nation to the policy of the Good Neighbor . . . the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.”

That’s the America we should be.

The Debate Hillary Lost

Was it over Kyl-Lieberman? Iraq? Hsu? Fundraising? Corporate influence?

No.

It was over...driver's licenses.

Specifically, driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.

Here's the short version: Elliot Spitzer, the firebrand Governor of the State of New York, is proposing that illegal immigrants be granted driver's licenses in the context of his state trying to deal with the many, many illegal immigrants living in the shadows and away from the law.

Hillary Clinton stated she supported this legislation...until...Chris Dodd called her on it, saying that a driver's license is a priviledge, not a right. Senator Clinton then did her standard backpedal:

1. It's all George Bush's fault

2. I'm for this in theory but I don't agree with the specifics

Edwards then went in for the knock out punch: we need to have a President who says the same thing regardless of who she - or he - is saying it to.

It's about being in truth-telling mode all the time.

Not wanting to be left off the bandwagon, Obama joined in with his ten seconds of "me, too"...but this moment belonged to the tag team of Edwards and Dodd, who got Clinton on the ropes and didn't let her recover.

It revealed Clinton's main weakness: she dissembles, trying to carefully craft her messages so specifically to different audiences that eventually she just ends up completely contradicting herself until you're really not sure where she stands on anything.

And here's what I have to say about all of that: Edwards/Dodd 08!

A Democratic Landslide...But Are We Ready?

This feels like Part 2 of an untitled series on rural America and John Edwards. This time coverage of rural Purple State America comes to you via the Rocky Mountain Times.

...In this far-flung, northwestern corner of Iowa, it's "almost kind of scary" to be anything but a Republican, she said.

Lyon County, which touches South Dakota and Minnesota, gave President Bush 78 percent of the vote in 2004. It's part of the big, red, rural block that Bush used to eke out the narrowest of victories in the Hawkeye State that year.

In these parts, "A lot of times you don't brag about being a Democrat," said McCarty, 72, of Larchwood, Iowa. "But it's getting better."

That could explain the elbow-to-elbow crowd that greeted Edwards at the firehouse - and the grin Edwards had when he was talking to reporters afterward.

"I do have to say, I was remembering the last time I was up here," Edwards said, thinking back to the 2004 campaign. "We had five, seven people. . . ."

Times have changed...

Link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5728155,00.html

Things are definitely happening among the Bush believers of rural America. After Katrina, after Iraq, after their homes values have dropped and their dollar just doesn't buy as much as it used to, a lot of them have just stopped believing.

My gauge on this one is my dad. My dad is your prototypical Republican voter. White. Male. Protestant. Small town. The breed of working American who somehow can't bring himself to use the phrase "working class" when describing his economic status.

Before Katina, he almost exclusively watched Fox News (I remember a discussion we had in the time share where we all were staying where I negotiated the MSNBC Compromise). He listens to Rush...and actually enjoys the experience!

But then, after Katrina, something happened to my dad. A fervent believer his whole life (in both Christianity and conservative values) he started to question his beliefs. To illustrate, let me share with you my paraphrased recollection of an instant message we had one night a few weeks back:

Dad: What is KOS?

Me: KOS? What do you mean, KOS?

Dad: They're talking about it in the news. KOS. What is that?

Me (really not getting it): KOS? Do you mean K.O.S.? Or like cuz - because?

Dad: No. They're saying KOS uses bad words and lies about people. What is it?

Me (when the light dawns): Do you mean Kos, as in Daily Kos? The blog?

Dad: Yeah.

Me: Dad, I blog over there. They don't use words that are any worse than any other blog. Here, check out the link right now: www.dailykos.com.

Dad (after a few minutes): Yeah, I don't see anything wrong over there.

Me: Exactly.

Dad: That's not right. When they're reporting stuff they should let you know the whole story.

At which point my head exploded and I launched into a very nice rant about Fox News.

My point in bringing up this story is this is just one of many times recently where my dad has questioned Fox, and Rush, and Bush, and basically the whole God, Guns and Gays agenda of the far right (although my dad's never been much of a gun nut - he just hangs out with them sometimes). If you've ever met someone like my dad, seeing the propaganda shell he's hid himself in cracking right before your eyes is a beautiful thing.

But it's not just my dad.

A lot of rural Americans are questioning what used to be the unquestionable assumption that just like going to church and rooting for the local college football team, they were just going to vote for whatever Republican was on the ballot. More than that, they're starting to question why they've been doing that for so long.

It's almost like they're starting to feel that the GOP has been taking them on a for-granted ride since Reagan first uttered the phrase "Government is the enemy".

Democrats are poised to pitch these folks on a different path. A Competing Big Vision. Edwards is wide and deep down this road already, talking to folks about the things that are important to them: their pocketbooks, their health and their livelihood. Economic populism had its roots in the rural communities of the 19th Century, and every few generations it comes back again in the form of a William Jennings Bryan or a Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Edwards isn't the only one trying to harness this potential power. Obama has just released an agricultural plan that's pretty darn good reading, and Richardson talks a good huntin' game.

But for my money, Edwards is the one whose strategy includes focusing on these folks and bringing them back to their populist roots. Such a strategy, if successful, could garner Democrats a landslide, the reverberations of which could last for years to come.

But are we ready?

Hillary Clinton and Monsanto's K Street Test Plot

The ironically named "Rural Americans for Hillary" are holding a shindig to raise some funds for her presidential hopes. Where is this being held?

Iowa? No, sir.

Western New Hampshire? Nope.

South Carolina's low country? Wrong Again.

ABC News reports (and this flyer confirms: http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/cl inton_invitation.pdf) that Rural Americans for Hillary are holding this high-toned get together at a lobbyist's headquarters in Washington, D.C.

"... and specifically, though it's not mentioned in the invitation, at the lobbying firm Troutman Sanders Public Affairs...

...which just so happens to lobby for the controversial multinational agri-biotech Monsanto.

You read that right: Monsanto, about which there are serious questions about its culpability regarding 56 Superfund Sites, wanton and "outrageous" pollution, and the decidedly unkosher (and quite metaphoric) genetically-bred "Superpig."... (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2007/10/yee-haw.html)

You can't take big money and expect big change.

Vote Edwards.

Big Money, Big Lobbyists, Little d's

What's a "little d"? It's Democrat who doesn't stand up for Democratic values. It's a Democrat who puts power over policy and party over people.

It's a little d.

Wanna know what I'm talking about? Check out this clip from a movie made in 1998, at the end of the Clinton years:



Remember that time when Democrats held the White House and we were "standing at the doorstep of a new millenium"? Wanna know what the heck happened?

It wasn't the brilliancy of George W or a little man known as Turdblossom.

We forgot who we were...and now we've forgotten that we forgot who we were by buying into corporate America's pitch to all of us that the "money primary" is the real one, and somehow all of us normal folks will just fall in like lemmings behind the person with the most cash.



You can't take Big Money and expect Big Change. The world just don't work like that, and all of us know this in the back of our minds. And if we know it, trust me, the former First Lady knows it, too.

Do you need universal healthcare today? Do you need an end to war after war after war in our continuing quest for bigger profits for Big Oil companies encased in the logic of national self-interest?

Is your wallet a little lighter, and your home worth just a little less?

Do you want this to change now...or do you want to hope it changes in, say, six-ish years from now?

Little d's are for little change. Incremental steps. Let's all have a seat at the table, including the folks that pocket the silverware and hog the dessert tray.

We had little d's before our eight years of Bush, and that brought us downsizing, and "welfare reform", and an abandoned attempt at universal healthcare.

We need to remember that.

We need to elect big D's that stand up for those of us who can't afford to hire our own lobbyist. Big D's who walk their talk by not just believing in public campaign financing but by actually participating in it. Big D's who help the working men and women of our country by supporting unions and workers rights. Big D's who will not allow one person in this country to go without health care, and who know that there's something that we stand for that is more patriotic than war.

John Edwards is a Big D. Elect him. Now.

Thoughts on Money, the DuPonts, Delaware...and John Edwards

I'm sitting here in a hotel room in Delware, the state known for a tax-free holiday, any day of the week, any week of the year for any good you need - or want - to consume. Delaware, the state of Joe "let's divide all these folks up in Iraq to solve our problems" Biden (and after driving through downtown Dover today, I can tell ya - dividing folks up by ethnic group is something that struck me as being something organic in this state).

This is the state of the DuPont family, the folks that made their money off of chemicals and death-in-the-form-of-selling-gunpowder. It's the state of the super rich, who own multiple mansions...and the super poor, like Phillip Reid, an 18-year-old walking down the 1400 block of W Forth Street in Wilmington when he was shot dead by a 17-year-old stranger who passed him on the sidewalk and said, "You got a problem?" (In Section B of "The News Journal" today - yes, I'm referencing newsprint!)

Yesterday, my husband and I took our kids to a local Chick-fil-A (they don't have these in New England so whenever we travel to more southernly climes we try to stuff our faces with these heavenly, fatty, fried chicken sandwiches. And sweet tea). Our children are young, and so moving them physically around can generally be somewhat of a challenge. This time an older woman with her teenage daughter saw us struggling between a stroller and a four-year-old, attempting to get both of them going in the same direction, so she took pity on us and opened the door to help us herd the little ones inside.

She briefly smiled at my husband and said, "Don't put your kids in public school. Been there, done that. It was a disaster."

Yes, it was an odd thing to say in front of her own teenage daughter. Yes, it was even odder in that it was a complete nonsequitor, without any lead-in, without any conversation about schools, or kids, or anything.

Here's the even odder thing: when you look at the statistics of public school rankings nationwide, Delaware as a whole isn't that bad. It's ranked #7 in spending per pupil, and average academic achievement is generally above national percentages (with huge disparities between white students and all other minorities, it should be noted - link here: http://www.all4ed.org/states2/Delaware.p df)

That got me thinking about how we look at money and public institutions. I'm a self-described liberal - progressive, even - and most of us on this side of the political spectrum love the idea of public institutions. Public parks. Public libraries. Public schools. And public - or universal - healthcare. But there are some of us at times (and I don't exclude myself from this assessment) who like the idea of the public institution more than the reality of it. Sure, public parks are great...but sometimes you just want to have the nice, expensive treehouse-slide-swingset-fort playcenter in your own backyard. Yeah, public schools are wonderful institutions...as long as I live in the right neighborhood. If I'm "pioneering", you know my kid's going to that nice private school down the road.

Public institutions are looked upon in this country too many times as places of last resort. In fairness, more often than not they are. But should they be?

The people who built the original colonial towns in this country built them with greenspace. Either a commons, or a town green, or some area around which the main business of the community could be conducted. People could interact with each other. Sometimes, it was used for a collective place to graze your cattle, or hang people. Sometimes the best and the worst of the community was on display in these areas. But it was a public place that the public used, and it was a vital part of the community...and not just some area that those desperate people utilized because it was their last resort.

All of this leads me to John Edwards and his decision to use public campaign financing. Serious politicians aren't supposed to use public financing now, not if they "really want to win". Only if you're desperate, only if this is a complete area of last resort, is one supposed to use this imperfect public institution as a means to become President and help set an agenda for all of our imperfect public institutions.

And we want to know why our government doesn't work for us. Hmmmmm....

Edwards is a rich guy. Not only that, his campaign has raised some serious dough - more, I might add, than a good number of his Republican counterparts. But all of us on the left, all of us who want to protect and expand our public institutions have been sold the meme of the "money primary", that somehow "most electible" means "person with the most campaign cash". Not best ideas. Not best strategies to move the country forward. Not even best in running against candidates from the other party in the general election.

Just...cash. Money. Mulah. The almighty dollar-ino.

Personally, I think we need to change the way we look at this whole thing, if we believe in Martin Luther King's admonition that your ends are in your means. Maybe, just maybe, Edwards - this independently wealthy guy of $400 haircut fame - took a look at this insane methodology we're using to pick our presidents and thought to himself, "You know, I could either run on money or on people and ideas. Let's just go the public campaign financing route." I don't know if this was the thought process - I've never spoken to the man before in my life. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

It's never too late to change, and it's never too late to do the right thing. I'm glad Edwards took this step, even if it is somewhat late in the game. I'm not saying that all of the other candidates have to "join him", far from it.

But maybe they - and we - should step back and think about how this process has been corrupted. Maybe we should consider how this affects our country if our ends are in our means.

Maybe we should really start being the change we want to see.

John Edwards and Our Interconnected, Post-9/11 World

It's a dark, cool fall night in New England, where the diningroom/computer room/throughway to the kitchen/kids art area has finally ceased of all the activity it can handle within its modest 9' x 12' walls. Our family struggles with two small children, one of whom likely has mild autism. As parents our minds agitate over every bill, our souls rejoice over every word our children speak. Trapped in a house that we cannot sell in this current real estate market, we gird ourselves against the here-and-now and focus on the future.

We are like every other family on our block, and all of these families are interconnected with famililes from Great Britain, and Iraq, and North Korea, and Russia, and South Africa. What affects our one family directly affects all of these other families indirectly, and what these far-away families experience directly affects us indirectly.

To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., we are tied in the inescapable bonds of mutuality.

September is one of the hardest months for me, as it reminds me of younger days when my husband and I were DINKS (double-income no kids). Where was I on 9/11? I was in an up-and-coming, African American suburb of Atlanta, Georgia, working what many would consider a dream job: matching my professional talents with my passion for social justice.

On 9/11, I was on the phone, strong-arming a business executive, using an opening he had left wide-open for me to exploit. I was focused, shutting out the bright blue sky and crisp morning air outside my office so that only he and I existed in this moment in time. In tense negotiations, we were discussing the possibility of his company sponsoring an educational program on nonviolence...

...then the first plane hit.

We couldn't ever pick up that conversation again. It wasn't that we didn't understand its importance, it's just...well, let's say a lot of things went undone after 9/11. Best to put them away, try to hide the sensory memory of the experience.

I eventually left that job and wandered through this world, raising my children, having more conversations with more people about more money and what I would and would not do for them. But always, I carried in the back of my mind the memory of that day, the thick-as-mud irony of my small attempt to spread the message of nonviolence right when the World Trade Center was attacked.

The dark ironies seemed to continue: a cynical use of a national tragedy to play "Democracy dominoes" in the Middle East by attacking Iraq; our national leader declaring "you're either with us or against us" (and giving one the sinking sensation that - in addition to France and Russia - he meant you); a hooded man, arms akimbo, wires dripping off his body as if he was some decorative indoor palm tree in a shopping mall just waiting for the Christmas lights to be turned on.

Martin Luther King viewed the world through the lense of what he termed the "triple evils" of society: racism, poverty and war. It was in the middle of my wandering through my daily life that I encountered this message that gave me hope, that made me think, "Wow. Here's finally a presidential candidate who knew what King was actually talking about":



Being the jaded, research geek that I am, I dug deeper. I found his policies on poverty: http://johnedwards.com/issues/poverty/ and universal health care: http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/ . And I started to notice something: this guy's policies were all interconnected. This wasn't politics-by-laundry-list. This was the beginnings of a coherent strategy to take on King's triple evils proactively, to start the process of true justice by using the tools of our sometimes-corrupt-but-still-accountable Democratic system.

Over time, either the policies grew or my knowledge of them did, but I discovered the same consistency in John Edwards' stance on labor: http://johnedwards.com/issues/working-families/ (King, by the way, was an unabashed supporter of unions and organized labor) as well as the environment: http://johnedwards.com/issues/energy/ .

Recently, he's put out a plan to combat terrorism that is the closest I think one can realistically get to protecting our country by not just going after global terrorists structures but also the root causes of terrorism:



All of this has made me very hopeful that maybe, just maybe, we'll have a Presidential candidate that can implement not just King's words, but his policies.

Maybe John Edwards, once elected, would fall short on that. Maybe the realpolitik of Washington would crush his progressive policies and my soaring expectations. If so, he's got one seriously jaded, vocal blogger on his hands.

But I think at least he deserves a chance.

Kumbaya and the Politics of Race

There comes a time when regardless of how much that inner voice tells you restraint is the higher form of virtue, you just have to trudge forward and get your hands in the dirt.

This is one of those times.

My personal breaking point came yesterday when reading that somehow certain folks think that John Edwards was using a racial slur when referring to Barack Obama as a "kumbaya" candidate.

I read these comments in yesterday's Huffington Post, under an article with the title "Edwards Smacks Obama As "Kumbaya" Candidate" (link is here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-news/c omments/2007/09/11/63942). This is actually an excerpting of a larger article in the New Yorker (link here: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/ 09/17/070917fa_fact_lizza?printable=true ).

Just for the record, here is the exact quote from the article:

"...Edwards dismisses Obama's argument that more consensus is needed in Washington. The difference between them, Edwards told me, is the difference between "Kumbaya" and "saying, `This is a battle. It's a fight.'..."

Nowhere in this article does the author mention that Edwards' intention was a racial slur. Nowhere does the author even think to ask whether a racial slur was intended.

Nowhere does the thought that this could be a racial slur ever even appear to pop into the author's head.

Why is that? Well...because "kumbaya" is not a racial slur.

First, some background on the song. The song appears to have originated among the Gullah people of the South Carolina coast:

"...According to ethnomusicologist Thomas Miller, the song we know began as a Gullah (an African-American people living on the Sea Islands and adjacent coastal regions of South Carolina and Georgia, see also here) spiritual. Some recordings of it were made in the 1920s, but no doubt it goes back earlier. Published versions began appearing in the 1930s..." (http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_col umnists_ezorn/2006/08/someones_dissin.ht ml)

The first claim of ownership of the song comes from a Rev. Marvin Frey in the 1930's. The most reknowned use of the song is Joan Baez's recording of it in 1962, where it became associated with the civil rights movement.

As far as the derisive references to the song, in pop culture it is meant to personify someone who is helplessly encased in rose colored glasses, who naively assumes that just by sitting down and talking all of the world's problems can be immediately solved.

For instance, Arianna Huffington uses it in this September 2006 article, "Bill Clinton and Laura Bush: Homogenizing the '06 Election":

"...By making nice with Laura and promoting a kumbaya, "we're all in this together" atmosphere Clinton is blurring the very real distinctions between Democrats and Republicans and homogenizing the '06 race. And homogeneity is death in elections..." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-hu ffington/bill-clinton-and-laura-bu_b_298 68.html)

Or this reference by then-President Clinton's spokesperson:

"...Smooth sailing," Mr. Clinton said as he led the leaders single-file off the passenger ferry Tyee and into the lodge. "I don't now if they are going to be holding hands and singing 'Kumbaya,' but this is just what the President had in mind," said Lorraine Voles, a White House spokeswoman. "This all about getting to know each other..." (http://en.allexperts.com/q/Etymology-Mea ning-Words-1474/Idiomatic-use-kumbaya.ht m)

Or this recent use by David Sirota (thanks to blogger mkj for the research on this one):

"...I've written a lot about Obama, including a major piece for The Nation magazine last year. In my time studying his career, it became obvious that this is a person who wants to do the right thing and has genuinely strong convictions. But he also seems to believe that the reason our country has such challenges is because all sides of every issue have not come together in unity (I've gone back and forth wondering whether this is a sincere belief or merely a justification for overly cautious behavior, but I'm not a psychoanalyst, so I have no idea).

The problem with this outlook is that it fundamentally misunderstands why we are at this moment in history. Forty-five million Americans are uninsured, and millions more underinsured not because low-income health advocates and the insurance industry haven't sat down together and sung Kumbaya..." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-siro ta/i-want-to-believe_b_40901.html)

But I think one of my favorite uses of this word to illustrate this point comes in this over-the-top video game:



Nowhere have I ever heard "Kumbaya" used as a racial slur. Not even the notorious white-power group Stormfront uses this as a racial slur (and trust me - they use all of them).

So why do some Obama supporters suddenly think Edwards is using this as a racial slur when he refers to him at the "kumbaya candidate"? I wish I knew.

Racism is an ugly thing, and the charge of racism is one that as a society we do not take seriously enough. It is not a blunt instrument to be used on people simply because you don't agree with them. Tossing it around lightly and without merit removes power from the word itself, equating it to just so much political correctness.

Let's talk about the issues, let's debate the positions. But please, let's not invent racism where none exists.

Draft Gore to Endorse Edwards: A Write In Happening

Today's (well, technically tomorrow's) WaPo hints that Al Gore may endorse a Democratic candidate before the end of the primary season:

"...Former vice president Al Gore's pronouncement that he is likely to endorse one of the Democratic candidates for president before the primary season is over has set off a slew of speculation about who his choice might be.

Truth is, the courting of the "Goreacle" began many months ago. Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Gore huddled in Nashville in December, and Gore has also met with former senator John Edwards (N.C.). Gore and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) conferred as recently as last week..." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090801458. html)

So, I'm asking everyone's help in a "Draft Al Gore to Endorse John Edwards" write-in happening.

John Edwards is right on the environment. He is right on alternative energy. He is right on terrorism. He is right on Iraq. He is right labor.

Before I launch into a laundry list of items that Edwards correctly supports, here's the real reason why Al Gore should endorse him for President: unlike the other candidates, Edwards has a clear, concise holistic vision of this country. It is the Big Idea that Dan Balz in WaPo recently stated Dems did not have (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail /2007/09/07/democrats_make_new_blogger_f ri.html).

It is the idea of America. We are a country founded on an idea, captured on paper in the language of all men being created equal. The idea is expressed in working men and women saving and scrimping so they can afford that extra well-baby visit. It lives and breaths in co-workers being called into active service in Iraq, where they try as best they can to stop an administration's bad foreign policy from becoming an unmitigated disaster on the ground.

It is an optimistic belief in the good of all of us, that somehow we can all pull together to build a future that truly is better than the present we have now. It involves sacrifice, and hard work. But we are ready.

We can be patriotic about something other than war. After two disastrous terms of the Bush administration, we need the right leader to put us on that path.

John Edwards is that leader.

Please write Al Gore and ask him to endorse John for President.

Vice President Gore does not have a public email address, but he does receive snail-mail here:

Honorable Al Gore
2100 West End Avenue
Suite 620
Nashville, TN 37203

Elizabeth Edwards and U of M Strikers: Why I Love This Woman

Talk about putting your action behind your words: Elizabeth Edwards spoke to striking union members at the University of Minnesota yesterday.

Local TV station KARE-TV carries the details:

"...Braving the heat and humidity in a grey suit, Elizabeth Edwards, wife of presidential candidate John Edwards, showed up to lend support. She told the sign-waving strikers and their supporters, "If they respect you and believe in your dignity, they're going to provide you with this raise!"

It was a sudden burst of political star power on the first day of AFSCME's second strike in four years at the institution..." (http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article. aspx?storyid=264007)

KARE-TV also notes that the news of the strike wasn't even carried in the campus newspaper, the "Minnesota Daily" that day. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that because of Elizabeth's presence supporting the strikers, they're covering it now: http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2007/09/ 06/72163251?com=add

Also, please see KARE11's video news report posted online here: http://www.kare11.com/video/player.aspx? aid=53345&bw=

Elizabeth put the case for the workers in clear, blunt language at the end of the report, "This is just to keep up with inflation, for Pete's sakes, they're not askin' for the moon."

I couldn't agree more.

Women, Wiretaps, and Smears: the FBI and Coretta Scott King

"This is a woman who basically was trying to raise four kids and honor her deceased husband...I don't know how that was a threat to anybody's national security."

--Isaac Ferris, Jr., Coretta Scott King's nephew and spokesman for The King Center in Atlanta (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gdZ6WjVZ0RMNg6RHMfRBWm1t7f2Q)

Today's news of the FBI conducting surveillance on Coretta Scott King for years after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination sent my mind reeling. To think of anonymous, small armies of government bureaucrats, sitting in cubicles lit by dim, flourscent lights searching through Mrs. King's personal letters, reading logs of field agents meticulously recording the schedule of her comings and goings, and even having the audacity to critique her autobiography is like something out of a Terry Gilliam movie.

It's bizarre.

Unthinkable.

Yet, it happened.

Houston television station KHOU broke this story today: http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou070830_ac_scottkingfiles.85e64faa.htm l. It shows the extent that certain elements in our society - including our own government - will go to when confronted with an eloquent, plain-spoken argument for social change.

In his "Beyond Vietnam" speech (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobreaksilence.htm) delivered on April 4, 1967, exactly one year before he was assassinated, Dr. King argued that, "...A time comes when silence is betrayal...". In a relatively few short minutes he became one of the government's biggest domestic threats, more than the Black Panthers, more than Malcolm X. King was able in this speech to meld the anti-war movement, the civil rights movement and the movement toward economic populism together into one seamless garment, saying:

"...we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. And so we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor..." (my emphasis added)

King's threat was real: he was already at this point working on the Poor People's campaign, a cause that would bring together working people and poor people of all races to use nonviolence to demand economic justice from our government. He was poised to bring together disparate factions of the left and right, rich and poor, young and old by articulating how our nation's dependence on the military-industrial complex and the foreign policies it spawns adversely affects normal, every day Americans from widely divergent walks of life.

The urgency to stop him was real. The tactics employed by our government through the COINTEL program were brutal (http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm). His voice being silenced exactly one-year-to-the-day of delivering this landmark speech has always looked suspicious.

But after being silenced, why did the government continue these tactics against Mrs. King? Why did they start a meme that literally hounded her the rest of her life, making her the butt of political cartoons (one where she and her children were depicted as pick ninnies) and encouraging right-wing radio talk show hosts to label her "the Black Widow"? As KHOU reports:

"...One agent even read and reviewed her 1969 book "My Life with Martin Luther King, Jr." and made a point to say Scott King's "selfless, magnanimous, decorous attitude is belied by.. (her) ..actual shrewd, calculating, businesslike activities." (http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou070830_ac_scottkingfiles.85e64faa.htm l).

Why did the FBI employ these same tactics against close advisors like Ralph David Abernathy:

"...In the report the FBI details an uncertain and "shaky" Abernathy who was "concerned about his possible assassination as well as his position as President of the SCLC..." So the agent makes a recommendation: "It is felt that by notifying Abernathy directly upon receipt of information relating to threats against his life, some rapport may be developed with him..." The report also adds that doing this would give the benefit of "the disruptive effect of confusing and worrying him by reminding him of continuous threats against his life." (http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou070830_ac_scottkingfiles.85e64faa.htm l).

The FBI was worried that someone might stand up in the void left by MLK, might continue the work that he started on a summer day in a quiet church nestled in the chaos and confusion of New York City.

So, in the midst of visits to the White House, where Mrs. King and her children posed for photo ops and were told what a wonderful man their husband and father was, our government was reporting to these very same men with the sympathetic eyes where Mrs. King was going, who she was talking with, and how to sully her repuation just enough to make her a less credible threat.

This story has an upside, as all stories do. The government ceased its surveillence of Mrs. King around November, 1972. The American Civil Liberties Union issued a press release today calling for an immediate re-writing of the guidelines the FBI uses to spy on people in public places (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/315 30prs20070831.html).

And, a Presidential candidate paid tribute to King's seminal speech, illustrating its urgent, timely call to end our silence and finally be patriotic about something other than war:



If we want to stop the type of injustice Mrs. King experienced, it isn't enough to hold investigations or write better laws and policies (as important as these action are). We need to change who we are as a people.

Silence is a betrayal.

Stand up, speak out. Be the change you want to see.