Clinton's Gaffe, Obama's Passion, and Edwards' Speech Steals the Show
Monday, April 30, 2007 at 4:46 PM.Senator Clinton had enormous support from the dais. I remember joking about "subliminal messages to vote for Hillary" as Art Torres opened the convention's first general session by saying "God has a new voice, and it's a woman!" Torres and other party officials mentioned their support for Clinton in passing, almost as if it's no longer even worth mentioning since it's so obvious who we should vote for. And most of all, Clinton's position on the agenda was very friendly - she spoke first and no other candidate spoke in her time slot. I overheard later in the day that Clinton was allowed to schedule a "meet Hillary" session with delegates during Barack Obama's speech in the early afternoon, ensuring that Hillary supporters wouldn't get wooed by the charismatic challenger to Clinton dominance.
Perhaps all the support from the party elite is helping to distract from the fact that Hillary Clinton made a huge gaffe in her speech, on the issue of immigration. Everyone I talked to said that they thought Clinton's speech was strong, and it's true that she went out of her way to decry the Iraq war (without apologizing for her pro-war vote). She told a few good stories about her childhood. She came off as strong on universal health care and she sounded very tough on terrorism. In fact, I think I picked up on part of her campaign's general strategy of the moment, the "tough stance on everything" plan. And that's where her gaffe on immigration came in. She said that the federal government should register and keep track of all immigrants (documented and otherwise) because immigration is a "national security issue." In other words, if you want an even stronger PATRIOT Act and a bigger FBI and Homeland Security department, vote for Hillary Clinton. It seems to me that immigration is not at all a national security issue - it's a human rights issue. No undocumented immigrant has ever committed an act of terrorism in the United States. The vast majority of terror attacks - Oklahoma City, the Unabomber, the Atlanta Olympics, and the many bombings at family planning clinics - were all perpetrated by home-grown Americans. 9/11 was carried out by people who were registered with the federal government. Clinton's remark at the convention about tracking all immigrants met with deafening silence. She honestly sounded like a member of the Minutemen, and I was stunned along with the rest of the delegates. Her stance on immigration (which doesn't appear anywhere on her website, by the way) is even harder to understand since she said just last month that "taking a harsh position is not going to solve the problem [of immigration reform]" ("Mrs. Clinton Says G.O.P.'s Immigration Plan is at Odds With the Bible," NY Times, March 23, 2006).
As for the lesser candidates, Obama's great speech got the most cheers, but it was John Edwards who stole the show.
Edwards came clean about his mistaken vote and early support for the Iraq war, and then he went off the charts on the progressive scale. He talked about the labor movement and the need to protect worker's rights. He spoke of the long overdue drive toward universal health care, reminding us that if other candidates don't get specific on how to pay for their plan, then they don't have a plan. Edwards offered his plan, gave it's estimated price tag ($90-120 billion), and he said that he'd pay for it by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Edwards took us to our progressive roots, saying that if we don't stand up for the 37 million Americans who wake up every day, worried about how they will feed their families, then why do we even exist as a Democratic Party? He spoke of the need for a living wage for all Americans. He said that all Americans need access to college. And, on the anniversary of the violence in Los Angeles, he stated the obvious (but too often ignored) fact that race still matters in America: if you're black you're more likely to be poor or in jail. We've got to do something - and Edwards gave specifics and, wow, did he do it eloquently. "The time is over for poll driven politics," he declared, and said that on his first day in office Guantanamo Bay would be closed. He said that thousands of children in Africa die because their parents can't afford a $4 vaccine, and then he made me cry when he chided me for spending $4 on my cup of coffee. Edwards promised to restore America's image in the world by standing up once again for human rights and against genocide. What does America look like when we declare that a genocide is going on and then we do nothing? What does America look like when hundreds of people in one of our own major cities drown? Edwards hit all the right notes, and he now has this progressive blogger's vote in the primary.
Let's think strategically here. Looking at the Republicans, they're already on the defensive and at this point it doesn't look like any of them has a good chance at getting enough electoral votes. The apparent front-runner is a New Englander running on his (shaky) "hero" biography. The former man to beat is a legitimate war hero who has legitimately made about a half-dozen crippling campaign mistakes already. The 2008 campaign is the Democrats' to lose.
This Republican weakness means that we've got a real chance to swing the presidency to the Democratic base, if we can just get past the establishment support for Clinton and put a real Democrat up. There's no reason to "play to the middle" this time (and it's not like that strategy works, anyway). The Republicans are too weak to get past someone with progressive bona fides and a real chance to win 250 electoral votes like John Edwards. That's why I'm joining One Corps today, and I'll see you at a John Edwards event in Santa Barbara sometime very soon.UPDATE: Here's a link to mp3 audio of the Edwards speech.
From The Courage Campaign
Labels: 2008, From The Courage Campaign, Politics
By Erik Love
One of the greatest accomplishments of the American right wing has been the demonization of labor unions. Reagan's revolution has been so effective that even many people who are otherwise progressive can often be heard discussing the obsolescence of unions. "They were important at one time," the story goes, but today unions are part of the problem instead of part of the solution. A number of myths are cited as evidence for the idea that unions are no longer needed, including the popular notion that the primary purpose of unions (clearing up dangerous working conditions) has already been served now that we've got strong worker protections written into law.
This myth - that employers simply can no longer get away with unsafe working conditions - is laughable, especially if you've taken a look at the exposé on the lack of workplace safety in the New York Times right now. The idea that workplace safety is well-regulated by an impartial government hinges on the effectiveness of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Since OSHA's inception in 1970, its track record in providing rigorous oversight of private industry to ensure the constant protection of workers has been spotty at best.
The establishment of OSHA (and the advent of workers' compensation laws among other protections) was an important victory for the labor movement, to be sure, but with openly pro-business and anti-labor administrations from Reagan and the Bushes, the agency has been far from impartial in enforcing safety regulations. Without unbiased arbitration, workers remain all too susceptible to careless or unscrupulous employers.
According to the New York Times piece, under George W. Bush, OSHA has been greatly and intentionally weakened. Bush's OSHA has "issued the fewest significant standards in its history." For example, even though OSHA research noted that silica dust causes lung cancer, the Bush Administration has not put any new requirements in place to ensure that workers aren't exposed to the harmful chemical. Rather than set standards to take the most safety-conscious route in regulating silica dust and other dangerous chemicals like diacetyl (a food additive), the director of OSHA has insisted that "the science is murky" on whether these chemicals actually cause disease. Since no standards have been put in place by OSHA, companies are able to use their own judgment as to how they should protect their employees. The statistics show this isn't a good system for protecting workers - in California, the number of fatalities due to on-the-job exposure to harmful substances or environments increased from 35 in 2003 to 51 in 2005 (the latest figures available). The nationwide statistics don't look much better, they show significant increases in deaths due to exposure.
The best safety guarantee is a strong union. Then, there's no need to rely on "impartial" government oversight - a collectively bargained contract will require management to provide a safe working environment even if OSHA continues to fail to do its job.
From The Courage Campaign
Labels: From The Courage Campaign, Politics
This is the only newsworthy part of the photos aired yesterday by NBC. It's the little "give us credit for our scoop!" badge appended to each image sent by the Virginia Tech killer.
I honestly don't know what the executives at NBC were thinking when they decided to air photos and videos sent to them from the man who slaughtered 32 people on Monday morning. But I can make a few guesses.
"Our ratings will go through the roof!"
"Why focus on the families of the victims? If it bleeds, it leads at NBC!"
"How else can we possibly compete with American Idol?"
OK, whatever the reasons they have for airing parts of the killer's video yesterday, and then saving some new bits for this morning's Today show, they're not good enough. The videos are the worst kind of tabloid journalism, and they add nothing to the discussion except more grief and outrage.
The search for answers, "Why did this happen?" is important, and the desire to look at the message from this cold-hearted killer is understandable. But NBC did not have to milk their position at the center of this story in such an thoughtless, senseless way. They actually make CNN look classy by comparison.
Labels: News Media
Last year, on May 1, millions of people across the nation stood up and marched in support of basic human rights, especially for migrant workers. In response to a ridiculous bill introduced by Congressman Sensenbrenner (R-WI) - a bill that would have required the deportation of any undocumented person in the US - Americans in cities large and small took part in demonstrations calling for human rights and dignity for all people. This movement quashed the idea of summarily "kicking out" people who come to the United States looking for work and a way to support their families, people who contribute to America in essential ways even while often facing exploitative employers.
This year, the impetus for another demonstration comes from President Bush, who has proposed that all people without papers in the US will have to deport themselves and pay more than $10,000 in order to have a chance at a new "Z Visa." This plan is perhaps even worse than the Sensenbrenner bill. In response to Bush's draconian and unrealistic proposal -- and in response to recently escalating Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) dragnets, which serve only to frighten and dehumanize - there are renewed calls for more May Day demonstrations this year.
The call is once again for a national boycott on May 1, 2007, which will serve as a reminder that our economy could not operate were it not for the work of immigrants. There will also be marches and speeches across the country. The message is simple: human rights are not optional. Everyone in the United States deserves basic dignity and a path to citizenship.
From The Courage CampaignLabels: From The Courage Campaign, Politics
"Stay out of harm's way, but send us your pictures and video."And then the endless parade of "experts" and the ominous on-screen graphics proclaiming "Deadliest Shooting." I just turned on MSNBC here, some 14 hours after the horrific rampage was over, to see "BREAKING NEWS: Shooter among 33 dead."
I guess I'm glad I wasn't watching a cable news channel when 9/11 happened, because if I had been, I might have started believing that Saddam Hussein was connected to Al Queda or something else completely false.
That's enough ranting for me. Read this very well-written article from Alessandra Stanley if you want a really good dressing-down of our nation's television news media.
Labels: News Media
In addition to giving California more clout in the Presidential race, the move of our presidential primary election to February 5, 2008 also will give us the opportunity to reform term limits for our state legislators. Let's take a moment to consider the new term limit proposal, which was just recently made official.
Term limits have been a controversial idea from the time they were first proposed in the early 90's, and today their novelty seems to be wearing off. The basic idea behind term limits, as I understand it, is to check corruption and allow for a more representative legislature by making room for legislators who are women and from underrepresented minorities. These reasons were enough to convince voters in several states across the country in the 90's, and term limits have been in place in 15 states, including, of course, California. California's term limits are among the most restrictive, allowing for just three two-year terms in the Assembly (six years of service total) and only two four-year terms in the state Senate (eight years of service). Across the country, term limits have become less popular in the last decade, with six states deciding to repeal or cancel their term limits provisions since 1997: Idaho, Massachusetts, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
Now, California is considering term limits reform as well. The promise of making the legislature more representative through term limits has not panned out nearly as well as expected. Several studies on term limits, including this one (pdf) from the Institute of Government at the University of Georgia, and this one (pdf) from the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers show that term limits have either a minimal or slightly negative effect on getting more legislators who are women and from underrepresented minorities into state legislatures.
Another unforeseen side-effect of term limits is also receiving attention lately: the decline of California's influence in Washington, DC. Karl Kurtz notes that term limits have meant a decline in the connections between lawmakers in Sacramento and lawmakers in DC. Why? Kurtz explains that "with six- and eight-year term limits in the state Assembly and Senate… the turnover of legislators means that members of Congress… soon lose touch with those in the state capitol." The lack of influence in DC translates into lower funding from Washington for critical California priorities like schools, infrastructure, disaster readiness, and anything else that requires funding.
So it's good news that a recent poll (pdf) on the term limits reform proposal show a majority of Californians are ready for a change. The proposal's wording, which was just made official this week, is good news for reform:
LIMITS ON LEGISLATORS' TERMS IN OFFICE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years. Allows a person to serve a total of 12 years either in the Assembly, the Senate, or a combination of both.
The reform will keep term limits in place, but it will allow for more experienced legislators to stay in the Assembly. It should allow for better connections between Sacramento and DC, and the proposal should have nothing but a positive impact on making the legislature more representative of California's diverse population.
Labels: From The Courage Campaign, Politics
This weekend, Los Angeles was the site of the largest protest in the country since last year, as more than ten thousand people took to the streets to demand a humane and just immigration policy. The protesters denounced President Bush's newest immigration proposal, which would require undocumented workers to leave the country, pay more than $10,000 in fines and fees, just to get a chance at becoming documented workers. "I don't know why they don't want to give us papers, when we are working and trying to be good citizens," said Carlos Gonzales, LA resident, to the Times. The protest is set to expand in the coming weeks, as activists gear up for May Day 2007 with calls for another general boycott to demand human rights and to highlight the positive impact that migrant workers have on our state.
And today, California's voice on immigration gets even louder as the Field Research Corporation released the results of a new poll indicating that wide majorities of Californians favor human rights for immigrants. The bilingual telephone survey of 570 registered voters across the state shows that 83% of California voters want a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. The full report (pdf) indicates that there's growing opposition to Bush's Wall along the border with Mexico, with nearly 60% opposed to its construction. Also important to note is that only registered Republicans (68%) consider undocumented immigration to be a serious problem, with only 35% of non-partisan voters and just 40% of registered Democrats calling the problem "very serious." In other words, only dedicated conservative Republicans appear to think that there's a "crisis" in immigration, while the majority feels that this is a less serious problem that can be solved by simply giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship while enforcing strict penalties on exploitative employers and effectively patrolling the border.
California continues to lead the way on immigration. Despite the reactionary opinions of a few right-wing radicals like the Minutemen, most Californians realize that the "problem" with undocumented workers is that it's unfair and inhumane to ask them to live and work in the US without papers. The current system allows for terrible human rights abuses that makes the lives of too many people close to slavery. The political trade winds from California are clearly blowing in the direction of progressive reform for immigrants to our nation of immigrants.
Labels: From The Courage Campaign, Politics
The President of Ford Motor Company just stopped the President of the United States from blowing himself up.
Apparently, during a demonstration of a plug-in hydrogen car last week, President Bush was about to plug an electrical cord into the hydrogen tank. So, Alan Mulally (the President of Ford) sprang into action. From the Detroit News:
"I just thought, 'Oh my goodness!' So, I started walking faster... I violated all the protocols. I touched the President. I grabbed his arm and I moved him...."
And then, right after he saved the President's life, Dick Cheney shot Mr. Mulally in the face.
Labels: Detroit, Politics, Republican Douchebaggery
Unlike teams from that pathetic "university" in Columbus, when Michigan teams make it to the championship game, you'd best believe they'll come home with the hardware.
Go STATE!
Labels: Good Lord Does Ohio Suck Or What, Sports
Melinda Burns, the longtime Santa Barbara News-Press reporter who was fired last year because she helped organize a union in her newsroom, has an important op-ed in today's LA Times. She describes how the brazen, flagrant union-busting activities from Wendy McCaw, the owner of the venerable central coast newspaper, could have been avoided if the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) were already law:
"Believing that a union contract was the best way to protect our jobs and restore integrity to the paper, most journalists signed cards to join the Teamsters in July. We asked McCaw to recognize our union based on those cards, a step encouraged by the labor relations board, but she refused.... Under the Bush administration, the labor relations board has rarely sought injunctions ordering employers to immediately reinstate workers who were fired for organizing. The Employee Free Choice Act would require the board to do so.... Those of us who were fired don't know how long we can hold out in Santa Barbara, one of the most expensive cities in America. I'm putting my house up for rent. Others are borrowing money to pay their bills. You can lose a lot of sleep when you lose your job, and we're a pretty exhausted bunch. That's what McCaw is counting on."
Last month, when the House passed EFCA, I noted that we need a surge of progressive activism to make sure that this important bill clears the Senate. Let's take action today to make sure our Senators are on board.
Labels: From The Courage Campaign, News Media, Politics
