Edwards is Out

and I am disappointed. He was the best candidate. I will now caucus for Obama, but I am still not entirely on board with his platform and policies.

From Open Left's Chris Bowers:

Edwards was also the leader on telecom policy, coming out with his open media plan before Obama. He also took the lead in dumping Fox News (which both Obama and Clinton followed), and on opposing the Iraq supplemental back in May (which both Obama and Clinton followed). Just as Richardson led on residual forces, and just as Dodd led on FISA and global warming, on a whole range of issues and rhetoric, Edwards consistently pushed the field to the left during this campaign. It is indeed depressing to think about what the Clinton vs. Obama contest would have been like without him.

So, while both Obama and Clinton are actively courting his endorsement now, it should be noted that both Obama and Clinton endorsed John Edwards a long time ago. It is probably small comfort on a day like today, but John Edwards and his supporters should take heart for what they accomplished in this campaign. More than any other candidate, John Edwards made the rest of the field more progressive. Thank you Senator Edwards, an I wish you all the best.

Peace

Speaking of FISA

Bush's SOTU was horrific. So let's celebrate with a free ringtone

More from CREDO Action at Myxer

courtesy of Credo

Peace.

Fuzzy on Fisa?

This should help us get back into the situation,

From TPMmuckracker:

The White House surveillance bill squeeze stepped up to another level over the weekend. So the scene is set for an ol' fashioned cloture vote rumble this afternoon at 4:30.

To refresh your memory: the administration's far-reaching surveillance bill, which was passed last August in a similar White House squeeze play, expires February 1st.
To take the time pressure off and ensure that surveillance would be unaffected by the lapse, Senate Majority Leader has repeatedly proposed a 30-day extension to the Protect America Act. Republicans in the Senate have repeatedly blocked any effort to have a vote on it. They've also blocked attempts to hold votes on almost all of the offered amendments, leading to the situation today.

On Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) filed for cloture, forcing a vote which would end debate, preclude any votes on the amendments, and lead immediately to a vote on the underlying Senate bill -- the administration-supported Senate intelligence committee bill, which contains a provision granting retroactive immunity to the telecoms. The Republicans need 60 votes to make that happen.

Now things are at the point where even if the Senate did manage to pass some sort of bill before Thursday, the process of hashing out the differences with the House version (which doesn't contain retroactive immunity) would drag on past the deadline. Reid has said as much: "The president has to make a decision. He's either going to extend the law... or there will be no wiretapping."

And over the weekend, the White House issued a veto threat. The game was clear:

“The president would veto a 30-day extension,” a senior administration official said. “They’re just kicking the can down the road. They need the heat of the current law lapsing to get this done.”

Bush even added a tweak of soft-on-terrorism in his weekly radio address to bring home the message:

"If this law expires, it will become harder to figure out what our enemies are doing to infiltrate our country, harder for us to uncover terrorist plots and harder to prevent attacks on the American people."

For the record, everyone agrees that surveillance initiated under the Protect America Act will be unaffected for another year. But surveillance on new targets would fall under the prior FISA law, the one superseded by the Protect America Act.
So.... what's going to happen this afternoon? The Senate will hold its much anticipated cloture vote, and we'll see if the Republicans will be able to lure over enough Dems over to get to 60. Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL) will be present to cast their "No" votes. If the vote fails, it seems likely that Reid will try for a vote on that 30-day extension. (For it's part, the House is set to hold a vote on a 30-day extension today.)

As for what happens at that point, I'll be the first to confess that I have no idea. We'll keep you updated.

This is important stuff regarding our rights, folks.

(we are giving them way in order to believe the gov't will keep us safer, plus giving immunity to Telecoms - who enthusiastically spied on us with our own phones/email)

It's not a wonky issue. It is a Constitutional issue. Very, very important.

John Edwards - What Matters? - S.C. Debate

Whew I just got back from Vegas (I love my friends, it was a great trip). I missed the South Carolina debates but I was very impressed with this clip with John Edwards. I am definetly caucusing for him on Feb. 5th.

Update

WTF! Sen. Clinton I find this stance in Nevada crummy.

Democrats Want To Keep You From Voting

we are different from the Republicans, remember?

Conflict '08

I want to start off by saying that I hate conflict. I hate engaging in emotional-laden political debates/arguments because I HATE CONFLICT. I know that isn't very p.c. to say, but it is the truth.

Which leads me to my next trait which seems to be best friends with conflict - I cannot suppress or minimize my thoughts, principles, and internal core belief system. This leads me into trouble, because I get indignant when I can't be honest. I don't necessarily need to be right all the time and I am truly willing to change my mind during debates, but I can't keep my mouth shut.

Personally I think this is a good thing. I attribute it to my feminist backround and the women who fought for my voice to be heard throughout history, my parents raising me to love myself and respect my intellect, and my own courage. But it still leads to conflict which (sometimes) really tears me up inside. I am a perfectionist who does not like messy emotional conflicts, while at the same time I do not like keeping my mouth shut.

So that is why I have stayed away from talking about Hillary Rodham Clinton on my blog. I hate conflict and the whole Obama/Clinton debate pushes a lot of my buttons.

I will say that Hillary Rodham Clinton was a hero for me during my early 20's. She was an example of a strong, intelligent woman for me. I still appreciate that she was there for me to see and internalize.

But I don't want her to be our next President.


Do I want her over any of the Republican candidates - hell yeah! But the Republican candidates are horrific and pathetic.....I would want any of the Democratic hopefuls over them.


I am worried about foreign policy, and this article in The Nation was information I haven't found in MSM:

The Democratic Foreign Policy Wars

Please take a moment to read it if you are a participant in our democracy.

The Richard Holbrooke/Hillary Clinton (where did the Rodham go?) connection reaaaly makes me nervous. I am just not into such hawkish foreign policy. I can relate to this paragraph regarding Obama a lot more

"Like Clinton, Obama has more than 200 foreign policy advisers.
The campaigns have been dueling over who has the best bench. (Many people who have been linked with Obama are actually advising Clinton, her advisers say.) Obama's advisers tend to be younger, more progressive--having opposed the war from the start--and more likely to stress "soft power" issues like human rights, global development and the dangers of failed states."

Of course you need to read the whole story, but I think "soft power" issues are what we as a nation need to focus on.

There is also a great blog entry on Obsidian Wings by hilzoy, that I agree with.....

Playing To Win

We do need to think about how we frame our campaigns and what is permissible to us as Americans. Clinton is not the best bet for leading all of us back to civility and fact-based decisions involving politics.

Also Net Neutrality is a huge issue for me. We don't have open debate or access to information in the mainstream media (TV news channels are truly a farce), nor do we have it in our schools. Where else can Americans find the facts and info they need to make an informed decision?

Matt Stoller's look at Clinton's plan on Open Left is interesting:

Clinton's Fraudulent Telecom Plans

Whew, a lot of issues. I am also disappointed in the Clinton Campaign tactics lately. I don't want to discuss them in depth because they don't interest me as much as issues and open debate, but they do turn me off.

So I really don't like conflict and disagreement, but I understand that it is crucial to have conflict and disagreement in order to make an informed decision regarding my Democratic candidate of choice.

I still like Edwards, but Obama is my second choice.

Peace.

Edwards for President!!

Even if he doesn't seem viable, even if the media is completely ignoring him, even if he is not a perfect celebrity candidate - he is speaking the truth and fighting against those interests who are using and abusing all of us Americans.

I am spreading some quotes for John Edwards, because after my two year journey into the bowels of wonky politics - I know in my heart AND in my brain, he is simply stating the facts that we can no longer ignore:

Dear Kristin,

The choice in this election is simple. If we want a president who will lead America to the big, bold changes we need and change the conversation in America, Democrats should choose the candidate who has led the field in ideas and shaped the conversation in this race so far.

In this campaign, John Edwards has led on the issues -- the other candidates have merely followed.

But don't take it from me -- let me share with you some of the things people are saying about John.

As Paul Krugman writes today in The New York Times:

"On the Democratic side, John Edwards, although never the front-runner, has been driving his party's policy agenda. He's done it again on economic stimulus: last month, before the economic consensus turned as negative as it now has, he proposed a stimulus package including aid to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped state and local governments, public investment in alternative energy, and other measures."

And as Christopher Hayes writes in The Nation:

"The fact remains that the Edwards campaign has set the domestic policy agenda for the entire field. He was the first with a bold universal health care plan, the first with an ambitious climate change proposal that called for cap-and-trade, and the leader on reforming predatory lending practices and raising the minimum wage to a level where it regains its lost purchasing power."

In this campaign, John Edwards has led the other candidates in standing up for progressive change.

As Ezra Klein writes in The American Prospect:

"Much more so than Obama, it was Edwards who forced a new style of politics, untethered by the fear and timidity of the 90s, adamant that liberalism was an electoral boon and economic justice a popular sentiment. Knowing they had to defend against his challenge, both Hillary and Obama edged closer to his appeal.

"It left the Democrats in a much stronger position overall, and forced them to argue for, and commit to, a much broader and more inspiring agenda than we otherwise might have seen."

In this campaign, the other candidates have followed John's lead in talking about the special interests -- but the special interests understand the difference between rhetoric and reality. That's why corporate lobbyists are united against John Edwards.

As Kevin Drawbaugh reports for Reuters:

"Ask corporate lobbyists which presidential contender is most feared by their clients and the answer is almost always the same -- Democrat John Edwards. One business lobbyist said an Edwards presidency would be a 'disaster' for his well-heeled industrialist clients.'I think Hillary is approachable. She knows where a lot of her funding has come from to be blunt,' said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Stanford Group Co., a market and policy analysis group."

Want to help John's field-leading campaign for change? Then please take a moment to forward these quotes on to your friends and family who live in the 48 states that have yet to cast a vote for the Democratic nominee. Tell them that you are standing with John Edwards -- and ask them to join you.

Here's the bottom line in this election. We need a president who has the vision to put forth bold, progressive solutions to the challenges facing America in the 21st century.

John Edwards has shown he has that vision -- and he has led on it throughout this campaign.

Thanks for taking action.--Jonathan Prince Deputy Campaign Manager, John Edwards for President January 14, 2008P.S. - Your contribution today helps John Edwards continue to set the agenda for this election -- and to go on to the Democratic Convention, win the nomination and then the White House. Please contribute whatever you can afford to give today: Click here to make a contribution

I Support John Edwards for President - Please join me.

Peace.

Issues & Positions on Global Warming

from all our lurvly candidates:

The League of Conservation Voters 2008 Presidential Primaries Voter's Guide


Big differences between Republican and Democrats.

Happy Happy Friday-

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised: Gil Scott Heron

Oh Hell Yeah!

Kat - you rock our world. Thanks

John Edwards - New Hampshire Primary

Go John!

Speaking truth is not popular - and certainly not going to get you much hype from TV news outlets.

But it is so, so needed!

Barack Obama: Yes We Can

Remember we *can* do it. Change is needed. I want Edward's change because it speaks more to the reality around me.

But I also understand how important the youth vote is.....you are important, and your voice will no longer be silenced in American politics. I am very proud of American's youth and I will support them in their quest for equality, fairness, and hope!

Obama's Victory Speech

Amazing Stuff. I will say, Obama's speech did give me hope.

Edwards did a great job also. I am proud of us.... I hope it doesn't end in Iowa.

Go Obama! Go Edwards!