Clinton or Obama

I'm probably going to caucus for Hillary tonight. Obama is an amazing inspiration but I worry about his ability to lead and I worry about his having the ability to actually get things done.

Having said that, this video, done by some of Obama's friends in Hollywood, is really well done.

Running for President without a brain or any common sense.

And some people think our current President is dumb. Read this quote from brand new Republican Presidential Candidate Fred Thompson as reported by the New York Daily News.

SIOUX CITY, Iowa - Freshly minted GOP White House hopeful Fred Thompson puzzled Iowans yesterday by insisting an Al Qaeda smoking ban was one reason freedom-loving Iraqis bolted to the U.S. side.

"They said, 'You gotta quit smoking,'" Thompson explained to a questioner asking about progress in Iraq during a town hall-style meeting.

Thompson said the smoking ban and terror tactics Al Qaeda used to oppress women and intimidate local leaders pushed tribes in western Anbar Province to support U.S. troops.

But Thompson's tale of a smokers' revolt baffled some in the audience of about 150 who came to decide whether the former Tennessee senator is ready for prime time.

"I don't know what that was about," said Jim Moran, 72, who had driven from nearby McCook Lake, S.D.

A Double Dose of Passion

Jen Lemen is a blogger who recently wrote about meeting Elizabeth Edwards. The post is a bit over the top but the passion is real and an interesting read.

“I worry about you,” I said, surprised at how emotional I felt putting these thoughts into words. “I know your cancer is back and that you have these little children. I want to be so supportive of what you’re doing, but at the same time I don’t want to participate in something that would diminish this time in your family’s life–your time is so precious.”

It feels shocking now to recount this. Who am I to worry about Elizabeth Edwards or to get myself worked up into some form of motherhood grief over the thought of being ill or leaving little children behind, but the whole thing just gets me. One of my greatest fears is orphaning my children. I feel so deeply how much they need me, how much their hearts would be split in two without me.

She turned to me with so much fire in her blue eyes..."

Read the entire post here.

Sometimes, good things happen in Wisconsin

I love this story. According to the Janesville Gazette, two professors at Concordia Univeristy plan to launch a joint, bi-partisan, challenge to Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner together.

Political scientist Jeff Walz, 40 will run as a Democrat. Historian James Burkee, 39, will run as a Republican.

The two men will publish a document that lays out the ground rules for their campaign. It will include a pledge to avoid personal attacks and not accept money from special interest groups.

Walz and Burkee say they disagree on many things but want to show district voters what they believe campaigns ought to look like.

If, by some chance, Burkee manages to win his primary challenge, the two have pledged to travel the district and debate every day between the primary and general elections.

What's not to love about this story? It is too bad they aren't challenging someone a bit more vulnerable. I wonder if they'll have any staff or consultants and if so if they will hire them jointly. That could be really interesting. Could you imagine joint television commercials?

Actually, you could save a lot of money under this model because you wouldn't need nearly as much staff or as many consultants.

I wonder if it will work.

Edwards, Clinton, Obama, Biden, Richardson

I've gotten some feedback regarding my Obama post from the other day AND I watched the entire CNN - YouTube debate last night.

A couple of people took me to task saying that I mis-represnted Obama's position and that Obama thinks it's better for UN forces to deal with genocide than US forces and that he would not stand by twiddling his thumbs.

OK. Maybe I got a little carried away in my language as it applies to Obama. I still think he's wrong. When genocide happens, the United States shouldn't wait for someone else to act. The United States should lead and lead by example.

And that leads me to my next point, I thought Joe Biden was great at last night's debate. He was forceful and acted like a leader -- a bit of a goofy leader -- but a leader. Joe said we need boots on the ground in Darfur. The other candidates largely passed the buck to the UN or others, although Clinton deserves some credit for outlining how she would use US forces in the region.

I thought Biden and Richardson won the debate. Clinton and Edwards tied for second with Obama coming in next.

I thought the most remarkable moment of the debate happened when John Edwards was asked about gay marriage. You really could see him struggle with the question. He says he's against it but I think he's mostly confused and conflicted. It was almost painful to watch.

The best question of the night came from these two guys.




Finally, beacause Anne asked, I'm supporting Edwards. My second choice is Clinton and then it is either Obama or Richardson, I'm not sure which.

Obama is wrong

Senator Obama says that the U.S. military shouldn't be used to stop genocide.

"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now - where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife - which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea," he said.

I think he's wrong. And I'm not sure I want a President who is willing to stand by and watch genocide happen.

And what's up with the "which we haven't done" portion of his quote? Is he really going to base his foreign policy decisions on things that the current administration has or hasn't done? I thought part of the rationale for Obama's candidacy was that of change.

As the world's last remaining superpower I think stopping genocide ought to be a high priority for our country. Obama says if stopping genocide is a priority then we would need to be engaged in the Congo and in Sudan. I don't see anything wrong with being engaged in those countries.

I have no interest in supporting Obama in the primary.

Hillary Hits a Home Run

You may or may not know but Hillary Clinton has had a poll up on her website asking her supporters to pick a theme song for her campaign. People could vote for one of the choices the campaign made available or they could write in their own choice.

They announced the winner today with this video, a spoof on the final episode of the Sopranos. I think this is great.

A Great Fundraising Appeal

Here's the deal. I think John Edwards is running a smart, issues-focused campaign. And he's not just offering platitudes when he talks issues. He's got some very detailed proposals. I think you ought to support him and you can donate to him by clicking here.

Having said that, I think Barack Obama offered up the most creative and compelling fundraising appeal of the year so far.

Here's a guy that's got them talking in New Hampshire and Iowa about how campaigns have entered a new era where the top tier candidates are no longer able to do hundreds of small, intimate gatherings with real folks because of the crush of the candidates' celebrity. How do you fight that image, the image of high rollers buying access with their contributions and still raise some money?

You invite a few small donors to an intimate dinner. Not only that but this appeal has a lottery type feel as well where people have a chance to win something. I would think a lot of people might find that "chance to win" a compelling hook.

I think this appeal is brilliant. My wife is supporting Obama. Here's the e-mail she got earlier this week.

--- "David Plouffe, BarackObama.com"
wrote:

> Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 13:54:52 -0400
> To:
> From: "David Plouffe, BarackObama.com"
>
> Subject: Dinner with Barack?
>
> Make a donation in the next week and you could have dinner with
> Barack:
>
> https://donate.barackobama.com/dinnerforfive
>
> Dear ,
>
> Most political fundraisers are hosted by lobbyists and filled with
> representatives of special interests.
>
> But our campaign is different.
>
> Our funding comes from a movement of Americans giving whatever they
> can afford, even $5, and Barack wants to sit down with supporters like
> you.
>
> In the next week, four donors will be selected for a new kind of
> fundraising dinner. If you make a donation in any amount between now
> and 11:59 pm EDT on Wednesday, June 13, you could join Barack and
> three other supporters for an intimate dinner for five.
>
> Two seats will be reserved for people like you who have given before
> and decide to make another donation during this special drive. Will
> you renew your generous support and take a chance at having dinner
> with Barack?
>
> https://donate.barackobama.com/dinnerforfive
>
> Our movement is changing the way campaigns are funded. We're not
> taking any contributions from Washington lobbyists or political action
> committees.
>
> More than 100,000 individual donors have demonstrated that this choice
> is about more than an election. It's about each of us having a
> personal stake in the future of American politics.
>
> The dinner for five is an opportunity for you to sit down with Barack
> and your fellow supporters and talk about what matters to you.
>
> Get the kind of treatment other politicians reserve for special
> interests. Make a donation in the next week, and you could share your
> story and your ideas with Barack in person:
>
> https://donate.barackobama.com/dinnerforfive
>
> With every single donation, we're building a movement to change
> American politics. And this is just the beginning.
>
> Thanks for your support,
> David
>
> David Plouffe
> Campaign Manager
> Obama for America>

I'm impressed. What a great way to frame yourself as a populist.

Women, Politics, Term Limits

I've always been a fan of mandatory retirement for elected officials as long as the retirement came after a significant period of time. I think 24 or 30 years is probably long enough for any politician to hold a job. Most limits on an elected official's term in office, however, are much shorter than that. The Washington Post on Monday had an interesting article that looked at states with term limits for state legislators and the number of women in the legislature.

Essentially what the article found was that states with term limits had fewer women in office while states without term limits had more women in office. Furthermore, states with term limits have seen the number of women in office decline since term-limits went into effect. According to the article:

Term limits are in effect in 15 states, in every region of the country. Created in the belief that they would make statehouses less hidebound and more representative, the rules remain a topic of considerable controversy, much of it about what effect the turnover has on legislative effectiveness.

In six states, term limits have been repealed by the legislature or killed by the courts.

Since 1995, the year before the first limits were imposed for state legislatures, the percentage of women in the legislatures has grown from 20.6 percent to 23.5 percent, an increase of 200 seats nationwide -- on average, four per state.

The overall increase in states with term limits, however, has been smaller than in states without. The number of women in the Michigan legislature, from the year before term limits were enacted to now, dropped from 34 to 29. Missouri went from 45 to 38, Ohio from 28 to 23 and Arizona from 32 to 31. In Florida, women held 38 seats in 2000 and 38 today.

A few states registered gains, notably California, where the number of female legislators climbed from 25 in 1995 to 34 today. Yet even in Sacramento, women occupy just 28 percent of statehouse seats.

What's questionable, however, is whether or not the term limits caused the decline or whether it is simply an interesting coincidence.

What I think is clear is that there has to be a strategy of promoting the candidacies of women if you want to increase their numbers in elective office. The Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party in Minnesota has been working on such a strategy for decades and the work has paid off.

My college friend, Margaret Anderson Kelliher was quoted in the Washington Post article about the strategy.

In Minnesota, a state without term limits, women have increased their numbers in the legislature from 50 to 70 since 1995, including a jump of 10 last year. House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher (D) credits two factors: the growing number of electable female candidates and the prominence of issues such as education and health care.

"There are more and more women who are serving on local school boards, running for city councils and winning, and creating a pipeline," Kelliher said. "The scholarly literature says it takes on average three times that a woman is asked to run for office for her to do it. My sense is we're maybe down to two times."

Like everything else in politics, success depends on hard work done over the long term. While term limits may serve to prematurely cut off promising political careers I'm not sure they should be blamed for a lack of women in elective office. Term limits simply make having a good pipeline very important.

Al Franken for US Senate

Al Franken announced today that he is running for the US Senate in Minnesota. His speech is about 9 minutes long and I think worth a listen. While I don't know if I'll be supporting Franken, I believe he makes an incredibly attractive candidate. Why? He knows how to tell a story and nothing is more persuasive than a good story.

Give the speech a listen. Then tell me what you think.

Very nice letter to the editor

From the Denver Post, a wry observation on the election.

"Didja notice that the last two candidates to conceed their Senate races were Burns and Allen? Say goodnight, Gracie..."

Dan Selig, Westminster, Colorado

Creative Yard signs

Just got back from a trip to Maui. The election over there is in full swing. I was struck by two things:

1. Endorsements are really important in Hawaii. More so than any other place I've ever been. Most of the advertising dollars I saw spent were for endorsment ads.

2. Creative signs and logos. Let's face it, political signs are about as boring as they come. But I found two good ones in Hawaii.

Free Trade

New York Times Columnist Tom Friedman told an interesting story in his Friday column.

Last week, I was in Nebraska, where I met Doug Palmer. He and his partner, Pat Boeshart, make insulated concrete forms for buildings. The traditional way to insulate concrete with foam is to make the foam and then truck it around the country to building sites to be attached to concrete. Mr. Palmer's company, Lite-Form, found a Korean machine that, when combined with devices added by his firm, can make the foam and concrete together on site, saving big dollars in trucking. Today, Mr. Palmer's South Sioux City company imports these machines from Korea, attaches its devices and exports them to Kuwait. His company has an Arabic brochure that tells Kuwaitis how to use the device. The brochure was produced by a local ad agency owned by the Winnebago Indian tribe of Nebraska. The agency was started by the tribe's economic development corporation. Midwest Indians publishing Arabic brochures for Nebraskans importing from Koreans for customers in Kuwait ...

"Protectionism scares me," said Mr. Palmer, who has 28 employees. "If we put up a moat and keep doing what we're doing, thinking we're the smartest in the world, we're going to die. We have to have that flexibility to barter and trade."

I come from a Labor family. Both of my parents have been strong and active union members. My Mother currently sits on the board of the Minnesota AFL-CIO and is a negotiator for her local union. I say that because, well, I'm feeling a bit defensive making the argument I'm about to make.

Free trade is a good thing. We need more of it. Protectionism will only hurt us in the long run. But the way we've done free trade up til now is wrong.

There are two problems with our current free trade agreements.

1. Our current free trade agreements, including NAFTA, have set up top secret courts to resolve any disputes that arrive under the treaty. The treaty language is horrible. It says that if a business believes it will be harmed by a law in one of the countries that has signed the treaty, that business can sue in super-secret treaty courts and those courts have the power to invalidate the law.

So, for example, California has passed stronger vehicle emission standards than most of the rest of the places covered under NAFTA. A Canadian or Mexican car manufacturer could sue California alleging that the emissions law will cause it financial harm. That suit would be brought in NAFTA treaty court and the court could order the state of California to stop enforcing their emissions law.

But it gets worse, here's the kicker, the only way anyone will ever find out if a lawsuit has been brought or decision made is if the court announces the decision. Prior to the court's announcement of the decision, all proceedings are confidential.

That's just nuts. Those courts shouldn't be secret and they shouldn't have the power to unilaterally overturn laws.

2. We absolutely must include labor, health and environmental standards in our treaties. Now, we don't need to demand that companies in other countries pay American level wages but we should demand that they pay a wage that will keep their employees out of poverty -- a "prevailing wage" if you will -- and that these companies meet strict health and environmental standards.

Free trade is a good thing. It can become a tool to improve the lives of Americans and citizens of the world. Think about Doug Palmer. 25 years ago, very few people in South Souix City, Nebraska, were thinking about Kuwait as a potential market. Today, instead of limiting most entreaupeneurs to starting businesses that serve just their state or community, we now have the ability to think, work and trade globally. And you don't have to be living in Houston, New York or Los Angeles to get it done. You simply need to have a vision that stretches beyond the boundaries of your community.

Growing up, my parents (and my old high school computer teacher, Charlie Weinman) constantly encouraged me to think beyond the boundaries of my small, rural hometown in Minnesota. But the vision presented wasn't global, it was national -- unless I wanted to become a diplomat and work for the State Department. When they said I could be "anything in the world" I wanted to be what that really meant to me was that I could be anything in America I wanted to be. And believe me, it was hard enough for me as a high school student to really see anything beyond Minnesota.

But for my kids, the world really will be open. They really will have a chance to compete, live and think on a global stage. I think that is a very exciting prospect. And it will only happen if we continue to pursue free trade.

Imus goes nuts

This morning's "Imus in the Morning" show included an interview with Rep. JD Hayworth from Arizona. Imus asked him about the Foley case, Hayworth gave an idiotic answer, and Imus unloaded on him.

I only wish I would have heard it. Reading it is fun but hearing it would have been better. The transcript, from MSNBC, is below.

Imus and Rep. J.D. Hayworth, (R) Arizona, discuss the fallout from the Mark Foley scandal:

Rep. J. D. Hayworth, (R) Arizona: "You know what's interesting? Pre 9-11 there was a member of Congress from California, there was concerne about a relationship with a page, pardon me, with an intern who went missing and with tragic results. Very interesting. I don't recall anybody demanding that Dick Gephardt, or Pelosi or anybody else in the Democrat leadership resign..."

Imus: "Well, no..."

Hayworth: "Well no because that's different..."

(Imus interrupting)

Imus: "Well what does that got to do with this guy being loose there in the House of Representatives, hitting on these pages and who knows what else, abusing them and terrifying these kids. They're there, they're sixteen years old and they're away from home, their parents are not there. All of this other stuff is answered, and doesn't have anything to do with anything."

Hayworth: "It has everything...."

(Imus interrupting)

Imus: "...Other than---other than both sides do it."

Hayworth: "Here's the point...."

(Imus interrupting)

Imus: "You and your--well not you, but the leadership there in the house has to own up that they knew what this guy was doing. They covered it up because they don't want to loose control of the House of Representatives, and they wanted to protect their seat in Florida."

Hayworth: "Here's the problem...."

(Imus interrupting)

Imus: "Nancy Pelosi's a dirt-bag and Dick Gephardt, and I know a lot of people like him, he's a creep. So you--all of you are. You all are creeps, every single one of you. I like you better than most of them, but you all do the same thing and then you want to and then when, the you know what, hits the fan you want to--you like little children. Well yeah, but he did it too. Well look what they did. Well what the hell does that got to do with anything? The guy was trying to molest children. Own up to it and demand that these people GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE!"

Hayworth: "He's gone. He's gone. And we took action, that's the..."

(Imus interrupting)

Imus: "Good. Get him out."

Hayworth: "We didn't defend him...."

(Imus interrupting)

Imus: "I want you to fly back there this morning and get him out of there."

Hayworth: "...He's gone, he's gone."

Also on the show this morning was Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. For the first time ever, Rick Santorum opened his mouth and said something I absolutely agree with. Santorum said we need to have an investigation and anyone who had knowledge of Foley's preying on pages needs to go. Remarkably, he also correctly told Imus that Foley's being gay had absolutely nothing to do with his going after kids. It was nice to see a "Christian Conservative" make that stand.