The thing is that a vote for Edwards would gain Edwards the ability to broker a deal with either Clinton or Obama. That would mean that more of Edwards positions will get implemented in the next administration. If voters jump ship on Edwards during the primary, the positions that he stands for will fade away. A vote for Edwards during the primary, even if he does not win, will greatly aid the positions that he stands for in a brokered deal with one of the front runners.

That's a very interesting and I think cogent analysis. My concerns with Hillary has all been she's too centric and I can not bring myself to believe anything she says. Additionally the GOP smear machine will have a far easier time with "Billary" ('cause anyone who thinks Bill is going to be hosting teas and not acting as though he were actually president is going to be in for a nasty surprise)than with Obama. Attacking Obama will be more difficult simply because he's black - it tinges (or could be made to tinge) any attack as being in part racist.

As I noted over at my place yesterday with the advent of the GOP funded "Freedom's Watch" they now have a well funded smear machine in place and they won't hesitate to use it.

If anything that's my biggest concern with Hillary - she'll be easier for them to beat than Obama will be.

"On the one hand none of the front runners (Kucinich does) give me all I want "

Then vote Kucinich.

We can not continue to complain about our lack of choice in elections and the failings of our two party system if we continue to cave and support the status quo. (Which is how the democrats have behaved since becoming majority. Do we want to emulate that?)

I am DONE settling with my vote. I will vote Kucinich on Feb 5 and in november.

Am i throwing my vote away? Ask the folks several decades from now. If we all rise and vote for who we want - instead of settling - in time we may overthrow this crappy two party system. The folks then will have found our independent folks critical.

Start now.

peace boxcar

boxcar is right. We limit ourselves to third rate choices by saying that this is the best we can do while other countries would have had a revolution by now. Americans are far too conservative, we have only our selves and our conservatism to blame for our lack of choice.

Americans are far too conservative

Actually most people are fairly moderate on the issues. Moore used to use this line a few years ago but no one ever believed him. Take a look at the numbers.

Iraq: With the Left
********************
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Dec. 14-17, 2007. N=1,008 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1 (for all adults).

"In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that George W. Bush is doing in handling the situation in Iraq?" Half sample, MoE ± 4.4 (Form B)

Approve: 33
Disapprove: 63
Unsure: 4


Abortion: With the Center
********************
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Oct. 17-23, 2007. N=2,007 adults nationwide. MoE ± 2.5. Aug. 2007 survey conducted by Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas.

"Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?" Options rotated

Legal in all/most: 53%
Illegal in all/most: 39%

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm


Guns: With the Center
********************
On one hand...
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Dec. 6-9, 2007. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

"Part of the debate about gun ownership hinges on how we interpret the U.S. constitution. The exact words of the constitution are as follows: 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.' Do you think these words guarantee each person the right to own a gun, or do they protect the right of citizens to form a militia without implying that each individual has the right to own a gun?"

Right of Each Person: 65%
Right to Form Militia: 31%

But on the other hand...

Gallup Poll. Oct. 4-7, 2007. N=1,010 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?"

More Strict: 51%
Less Strict: 8%
Kept As Now: 39%

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

********


Gay Marriage: With the Center-Left
********************
MOST AMERICANS BELIEVE THAT GAYS SHOULD HAVE EQUAL **RIGHTS** that come with marriage, even if not admission into the institution, which is really all I ask for.

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. Oct. 19-22, 2007. N=1,039 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Which of the following statements comes closest to your view? Same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Same-sex couples should be allowed to legally form civil unions, but not marry. OR, Same -sex couples should not be allowed to either marry or form civil unions."

Marry: 30%
Form Civil Unions: 26%
Neither: 38%

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

********


Taxes: Center
********************
Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. April 5-9, 2007. N=1,373 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"As you may know, President Bush's tax cuts are scheduled to expire in 2010. Those who want to make the tax cuts permanent say they stimulate the economy and provide more long term growth. Those who oppose making the tax cuts permanent say they increase the budget deficit at a time when billions of dollars are being spent on the war in Iraq. Are you in favor of, or opposed to, making Bush's tax cuts permanent?" Options rotated

Favor: 44%
Oppose: 41%

http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm
********


Social Security: Center/Split
********************
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. June 2-5, 2005. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.

"Would you support or oppose a plan in which people who chose to could invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market?"

Support: 48%
Oppose: 49%

http://www.pollingreport.com/social.htm


Health Care: Left
********************
Gallup Poll. Nov. 11-14, 2007. N=1,014 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

"Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage, or is that not the responsibility of the federal government?" N=501, MoE ± 5 (Form A)

Yes: 64%
No: 33%

http://www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm

********


Immigration: Center-Right
********************
ABC News/Facebook poll. Dec. 16-19, 2007. N=1,142 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.

"Would you support or oppose a program giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements?"

Support: 49%
Oppose: 46%

On the other hand...

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Dec. 14-17, 2007. N=1,008 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"Would you say that immigration helps the United States more than it hurts it, or immigration hurts the United States more than it helps it?"

Helps More: 39%
Hurts More: 52%

http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm

********************

America is a center-left nation. How people label themselves is another issue.

At first I thought Hillary was a shoe in- who wouldn't want William Jefferson back in the white house? Is she for change? absolutely not. She is part of the political machine, if not the biggest part given that she was in the white house for 8 years too.
Then I started listening to Barack - i liked some of the things he had to say about the war, i think he spoke out against the administration in deeds more than words BUT. but but but but. his defense of ronald reagan is unbelievable. that alone could do it. If Obama was referring to reagan winning the cold war, he should have explicitly said so. otherwise, reagan is the most anti-democratic president ever perhaps even more than bush. (against MLKjr day, pro-apartheid, anti-union, iran contra, anti-abortion, etc)
Also, if Obama really did back Lieberman over Ned Lamont, that borders on party treason. Especially since the main splits between Lieberman and the dems were on the war. So between allegiances with Lieberman and Reagan, Obama may have burned the bridge with me. And to be honest, since none of the candidates have the possibility of change, Hillary at least offers a return to a more pleasant status quo (with an aggressive Healthcare reform.)

Barack is far and away the most charismatic person running, intelligent, cunning and he would be a great president. Hillary's a shifty-say-whatever -focusgroup-politician. Yet, i am undecidedly pro-hillary because of her husband. (Sorry, Kucinich would get eaten up alive when it comes to foreign affairs.)

Of course, that's center-left as defined by issues that are perceived to capture the left-right spectrum in the U.S.... so I suppose really what you would conclude is that the population is slightly to the left of the local dialogue / political rhetoric. I'd argue, though, that in other world democracies, the entire spectrum is shifted to the left, making the U.S. a center-right nation by world (democracy) standards.

Touché

Themba -

Obama did not 'defend' Reagan. I'm growing tired of the media, Clintons, et al because they constantly misquote Senator Obama. What Obama said was that Reagan changed the trajectory of American political landscape in a way that Nixon and Clinton did not. Furthermore, he said the Republican party was the party of ideas for that time and into the 90s.

Senator Obama NEVER said he thought Reagan changed the trajectory of the American political landscape in a good way. Furthermore, he never said the Republican party had any good ideas.

This is important, because he made two very valid points.

The Clintons never created a new Democratic majority in the nation, yet Reagan and his movement created a majority that endured far past 1988.

I would encourage all supporters of Edwards to seriously consider more Clintons, more scandals, and more dishonesty in the White House.

I'm 24 years old, so the Clinton scandals of the 1990s occurred when I was in middle school - suffice it to say, I cared not. But recently I have gone back and read about the Clintons, about the Lewinsky ordeal, and I have concluded that the Clintons are selfish and they lust for power - to such an extent that country and party do not hold priority.

The Clintons never take responsibility for anything, and in that way are no better than the current administration.

Our nation just endured 16 years and two administrations with complete disrespect for the Office of the President. The Baby Boomer presidents have been two of the most polarizing presidents our nation will ever see. I'm tired of Boomer politics.

For that reason alone I would hope that Edwards supporters will look to Senator Obama if Edwards drops out of the race. The Democratic party cannot win in November if Hillary is the nominee. Moreover, I'm not sure our country can handle another Clinton presidency.

I'd argue, though, that in other world democracies, the entire spectrum is shifted to the left, making the U.S. a center-right nation by world (democracy) standards.

Note that American politicians are, as a group, to the right of the American people. The 'averaged' positions of the Democratic candidates is pretty close to to the position of the American electorate - if Erick's poll results are any guide. So, why hasn't the Democratic party been wiping the floor with the GOP? My guess is that, despite propaganda to the contrary, the corporate media is now well to the right of the public. That, and the fact that the GOP has historically had more money for campaigns the the Democrats, has managed to con a certain fraction of the public into voting against their own interests.

hard to know if it's true that Obama supported Lieberman. Look at this: http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/10/26/lamontgetsliftfromobamaliebermancampaignswithlandrieu/

These two are interchangeable. I wouldn't support either of these corporatist frauds.

I had never heard that Obama somehow helped fund Lieberman against Lamont. If that is true, I am more confused than upset, since Lamont has endorsed Obama.

Obama supported his mentor Lieberman in the primary against Lamont. He knew it would be political suicide to support Lieberman in the general, so he switched to Lamont. Real political courage there, eh . . .

I tried to post a link there but it didn't work. Emphatically, it was a news article described Obama's impassioned support of Ned Lamont, not Lieberman. So what gives?

I threw off most of what this email message said, but the Obama / Leiberman support thing caught my eye. I'm doubting that the author of this email has his facts straight.

Unfortunately Lemos has bought the Clinton spin on Obama's comments. Clearly he meant (though stated badly) that the Reagan Revolution was about getting lots of Dems to support him on key issues, and about setting a radical new vision/agenda. That is a historical fact. Was it a good thin? Hell, no. Obama has said as much. What he's doing is branding himself as the Democratic Reagan: capable of getting a few moderates and maybe even Republicans to go along with him on key issues, and overall providing the leadership and vision to push through a new agenda. Can/will he do this? That's another question.

Now, I'm also for Edwards and I'm rooting for Edwards to gain enough delegates to have a major say as to what happens at the convention. Barack may "sound" Republican on some issues, but so does Hillary: on macroeconomics, on security, on the FCC, etc. But does that really make not a progressive? I don't think so. Ditto Barack.

Indeed if Barack thinks he can compromise with some of those bastards Lemos lists, he's insane. But it's equally insane to think that a Dem-only agenda will be rammed through in a partisan way. They have more people, more weapons, more money. Oh, and about 2/3rds of the media or more. Getting "real" includes acknowledging that we have to beat down the rightwing wolves wherever possible, and negotiate on places where we can't. THAT is real, and I think that's what Barack is saying.

Here's a link that highlights Obama's endorsement of Lieberman from 2006.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/04/02/164/90446

I agree completely with the Barnum effect in regards to Obama. I don't want to hear about unity, about bi-partisanship (they remind me so much of Bush's campaign speeches I vomit a bit)--I want to hear about how we can get down to business and get things done. Dodd certainly gets this (I grow more enamored with him each day), as does Edwards, and, most especially, Mike Gravel. I enjoy listening to Mike Gravel, and am toying with the idea of voting for him. However, regardless of whether I do or I don't, he plays an important part in my vote, whoever it may be for--everyone has a shot except for Obama.
I had grow suspicious reading over Obama's platforms, and listening to his empty, contrived rhetoric for quite some time. During the second (I believe) presidential debate, the subject of Walter Reed came up. Gravel confronted Obama and why he, who was on the armed services committee, did nothing to prevent/stop the elements that eventually led to a scandal. Obama responded with, a)we toured the "wrong section" of Walter Reed, the inpatient, not the outpatient facility, and b)president bush refuses to give us the money to properly fund this sort of thing. Both answers are completely unacceptable, and they make me quake in my sandals at the prospect of his being president.
First off, you "toured the wrong section?" Honestly, what the f&%!. Seriously.
Secondly, Bush won't let you have the money? Is he your big brother? Did he take your bicycle? Get down to brass tacks, take examples from the Kennedys, Dodds, and Feingolds of the world and play some politics. Get what you believe to be the right thing done. Gravel accused Obama of being a lousy politician and Obama put forth excuse after excuse. This is completely, totally, and wholly unacceptable to me. Answer the accusations or take the blame.
I fear, based on this and other things it's far too late to type, that Obama has become consumed with his empty rhetoric of unity, so much so that the tools of politics and gamesmanship (which I'm sure he has, since he's risen this far) become rusted, buried in a neglected tool shed.

Another far more interesting fact (well, quite evident) is how many people are not voting for Edwards, despite the fact that he consistently is polled as the winner (by a fair to large margin) in the Democratic debates. I often wonder why (in my feigned idealism) the media focuses so much on primary "winners" (as if there are such a thing) and party rank. Why do I wonder when the answers so clear? Well, because the harsh reality of it is a bit too maddening.

Good post though; that letter was an insightful read.

I agree, Obama did not ‘defend’ Reagan. Here is what Barack Obama actually said to the Reno Gazette Editorial Board…..

…..“I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980’s was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

I remember the Reagan 80’s well. I also remember 1963, 1968, 1972, 1974 and all the 90’s and the past eight hellish years. Between my spouse and me, we have over 55 years of service to our country, one military and the other federal service. There is a huge difference in what agencies do, what they don’t do that they should and how they are not accountable to the public under a Republican administration versus a Democratic administration. Likewise, a Congress with a Democratic Majority is vastly better than one that is locked up by the Republicans (especially one that is in the process of impeaching a president for having an affair).

As far as President Reagan’s “trajectory” (course) for America, and the path he set us all off on - yes, it was fundamentally different. It was like we began a strange downhill spiral. The president had some good speech writers and he knew how to read his speeches well. He had charm and he was full of wit.

But, in reality, we lived with terrible “Reaganomic,” “trickle down economics.” Read Reagan Budget Director, David Stockman’s book where he tells how he led the cheers for Reaganomics while truthfully privately denigrating the administration's budget at the same time he sold it to the public. Read about James Watt, who Reagan appointed as his Secretary of the Interior. Watt cut funding for programs designed to protect endangered species, removed environmental regulatory power from the federal government and favored eliminating the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which was used to increase the amount of land in national parks and forests. He wanted wilderness areas to be opened for oil and gas leases, and he proposed selling these lands at low prices. 1.1 million people signed a petition to get him removed from office. The Democratic Senate drafted a resolution in response, but he finally resigned in 1983. We began having an AIDS epidemic in 1981 and the president never acknowledged it or spoke about it until 1987 after almost 60,000 Americans had the disease, and almost half of that number had died. Our stock market tanked, 11,000 union Air Traffic Controllers were fired by Reagan because they went on strike for higher wages and fewer hours on their high stress jobs, he deregulated the airline industry, millions lost jobs, millions became homeless, we had the Grace Commission (Read about W.R. Grace), we turned away vets who weren’t service disabled at Veterans Hospitals, we had the Iran-Contra arms for hostages Affair, and there were many more horrible happenings in the 1980’s.

Then, lucky us, we immediately orbited into another unknown zone, called the first Bush administration, which I could go on and on about too. Fortunately, in 1992, Bill Clinton was running for President, and he asked Al Gore to be his running mate. The first time I saw Clinton speak was when he came to my city, and he talked about change, about uplifting people and empowering them. He talked about minorities, workers, the disabled, all of us Americans, and do you know what he did after he gave us the Family and Medical Leave Act (which three members of my family needed and have been able to use)??? In 1993, President Clinton ended the "ban for life" Reagan had imposed on former members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Association. He and VP Gore completed their “Reinventing Government”, where they saved taxpayers millions and millions by making government more smaller and efficient. I could go on and on here, but I best not, lest you think I’m talking about a president who put us on a different “trajectory” because we the people of the country “needed it“.

It was hard again to make a choice for our presidency, but I chose Senator Clinton, because, of our choices, I believe she is the most capable, has the most overall experience, with tremendously able people at the ready and she has a well thought out plan, and therefore can put our hollowed-out, former “of the people, by the people, and for the people” back together again more quickly and efficiently. I do greatly admire and respect Senators Edwards and Obama, and will support them, as I should, if they should get our party’s nomination. Thanks.

Enjoyed the e-mail and all the comments generated by it. A very good dialog.

Edwards is getting my vote on Feb. 5th. It might be too late, but I don't care. Hillary is not bad, but she is a gigantic target for the right. The garbage they did to her the first time she tried to pass health care reform will only increase 100 fold because now it's the socially correct thing for the right to do... ya know, to stop "facism". I completely agree with the Barnum effect analysis of Obama. I've been watching him closely for a month now, and he isn't saying anything! He does have the campain strategy of Bush - "i'm not the last guy" That's not good enough anymore.

Edwards doesn't parse words. He wants a strong middle class. He wants to obliterate piss-on-the-lower-class (trickle down) economics. To not support him is against my personal beliefs, regardless of his positions in the early states. The debate on monday reminded me why I liked him so much initially.

This article in Harper's from a year ago gives a pretty good assessment of Barack Obama. Needless to say, Obama didn't like the article very much. But Ken Silverstein, who wrote the original article, backs it up with more facts here. Upshot: Obama is ONE OF THEM.

Thanks for posting the letter, it's one of the more worthwhile things I've read from your readers in a while.

Yvonne Griffin -

I enjoyed your assessment. However, I'd like to push you on your statement about Senator Clinton's experience.

I think the voting public is missing out on a good debate about 'experience'. We need to have an honest discussion about each candidate's experience - but more importantly, we need to be asking "What is RELEVANT experience for becoming the President of the United States?"

Is Hillary the most experienced candidate? Not really. The most experienced candidate was Senator Joe Biden, but the Clinton campaign spent a lot of time and money creating the meme that Hillary=experience. So let's discuss it.

She was a First Lady for 16 years. Now, I'm willing to bet she traveled far and wide and in her travels she met many world leaders. And, I'm sure she privately had many important conversations with her husband about the decisions he made. But was she ever in the Situation Room with President Clinton, making the really tough decisions? No. And when she was given a huge responsibility in the first years of the administration she screwed up, bad. The Clinton health care plan did not pass through Congress - which was controlled by DEMOCRATS!!!!! Everyone on this board who trumpets health care reform needs to remember that we might not be in such bad shape if not for Hillary Clinton's decisions in 1993.

To conclude, my point here is to show that the Democratic party has put forth three relatively equal candidates when it comes to qualifications for the presidency. They have three very different stories, but none can claim 'experience' that is more relevant than the others.

I'd have to say the real culprit here is the two-party, first-past-the-post system.

Until you fix that, you only have a semi-Democracy. Democracy Lite. Democracy the Beta Version. Diet Democracy.

Of course, you can't fix that, can you? Because those in power benefit from the current, very broken, "one less party and its totalitarianism" system, and you'll have to pry it out of their cold, dead hands. Not to mention most of the public has been lulled into apathy, and getting them to vote at all is hard enough.

In the meantime if you vote idealistically, that's likely to be, in effect, one less vote cast against the Republican candidate...

To restate the obvious: America is pretty fucked!

[blockquote]America is a center-left nation[/blockquote]

If we define "center" as the center of political gravity in the world as a whole, America is not center-left. It's more like center-right. The polls you cite are evidence that the U.S. population is far to the left of U.S. policy, but U.S. policy is extreme-right compared to most other countries. The answers given in those polls are in line with the policy of right-wing parties in Europe, so I think it's more correct to say that America is center-right (right, by strictly European standards).

But this is nit-picking. The important lesson of such polls is that they reveal the democratic deficit in the U.S.. Two thirds of the population want "socialized" health-care, yet it's still a political impossibility, and has been for as long as anyone can remember. This is simply outrageous. In a well-functioning democracy such a policy would have been implemented years ago. It's not like the U.S. can't afford it.

If we define "center" as the center of political gravity in the world as a whole, America is not center-left.

Someone beat you to it.

In a well-functioning democracy

And I already covered that. ;)

I just read ALMOST all of this long thread, from the original letter to the last comments. I beseech you all to read it carefully and see if you don't agree that this is the way healthy, rational--and sometimes emotional--debate should be carried on. A great deal of respect, a great deal of intellligence is shown throughout the posts.

Herding us lib dems is like herding cats, to use a cliche that does seem to fit us. All we can do is have this out--we HAVE to--and then work in whatever way we believe in our hearts is best for the country and the world.

This makes me proud. I challenge anyone to find a republican or conservative thread that exists at this high a level of--citizenship.

brad

First of all, I'd like to thank Norm for publishing my letter and to those of you who left comments. I will try to get to them but likely I'll have to do so a few at a time.

Of all the comments, the ones that struck with me the most were Brett, our 24 year old who is not so enamored of Clinton. Brett is the person I had in mind when I wrote about "a younger generation that has not been tempered by the experience of everything the progressive left has endured since 1968."

In his second comment he brings up the Clinton health care debacle of 1993-94. You would been 13 and so maybe you don't remember but what happened to the Clinton health care plan was that an orchestrated and rather vicious campaign commercial against reform was produced by the HMO and Insurance industries effectively broke the back of Congress.

You can find a full story of the 1993 Health Care Reform and what went wrong here:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03E3D71E39F93AA1575BC0A962958260

Read it and you will find more proof why John Edwards is right and why we need to make how some corporations do business a moral issue, because it is a moral issue.

I will also reread your comments and try to offer some perspective on why Obama is wrong on his "unity" message and why partisanship does indeed work.

I also want to respond briefly to boxcar who feels that I should vote Kucinich because he gives me all I want on gay rights. I don't vote single issues nor is gay rights the defining issue, I vote a totality of issues and character. On both issues and character, I believe John Edwards is the total package and one of the most amazing politician of my adult life. While I admire Dennis, I was also a bit put off by his last minute deal in Iowa with Obama. Voters are not sheep and he can release his voters to vote their conscience but telling me whom to support does not sit well with me.

As a side note and in full disclosure, I will mention that I managed to catch all Democratic Presidential contenders on visits to San Francisco in small (<200 people) Q&A settings except Edwards, Clinton and Obama. On Edwards, however, I did go to a fund-raising breakfast with Elizabeth Edwards that ran $100 to attend. I bring this up because I passed on seeing Clinton and Obama in similar settings because of the cost $500. To get the level of interaction necessary to make informed decisions about one of the most important decisions anyone can ever make requires paid access. I understand that politicians require capital to run their campaigns but the difference between $500 and $100 is the difference between both Clinton/Obama and John Edwards. Their target audience is much different than John's and I hope that anecdote gets you to reconsider John Edwards. I'll also note that I am a former investment banker with a ten year career on Wall Street so money is not an issue, but my conscience is.

If you care about liberty in this country, I'd suggest that you read a sermon by John Leland from 1791 called The Rights of Conscience Inalienable. Leland was a Minister and a minister to the Founding Fathers. When you read that sermon, think about the FISA debate now restart in Congress and tell me how that right of conscience inalienable is consistent with warrantless wiretapping. Please support Senator Dodd and John Edwards in this effort to defeat the forces of tyranny.

Charles Lemos San Francisco, CA

While I wrote my letter but two days ago, I'm changing my tact slightly. I've come not to praise Senator Clinton but to bury Senator Obama. I must conclude that as I have started to read the Chicago newspapers in order to discover more about the young Senator, the more I learn the more dangerous I believe him to be.

Senator Obama and his style of politics is pure Chicago it turns out. What is most troubling about Senator Obama is that he is displaying what Taylor Marsh says is "an easy willingness to straddle all lines in order to be all things to all people, regardless of ideology."

This is precisely what has gotten him in hot water over his comments to the Reno Gazette. In an effort to secure an endorsement, he told the conservative editorial board what they wanted to hear. To get that endorsement, he sold out the Democratic Party.

Now the Rezko scandal is about to break. So far there have been no indication that Senator Obama has committed anything illegal but wrong doing is more a matter of opinion. Take the case of Alice Palmer. Alice Palmer would have been Obama's competition in the Democratic primary for his first run for office back in 1996 for the state legislature. Would have been because she was the incumbent and would have been because what Obama did while not technically illegal strikes me as unethical and unscrupulous.

From The Chicago Tribune:

The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens. But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.

A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.

Excuse me but doesn't that strike anyone as unbound ambition? And just why is so eager and yet still rather vague? He went behind Alice Palmer's back and her stricken from the ballot. And to three others as well. Red flags galore.

And it also provides a rather unsavory light on someone who is campaigning to change "politics as usual" while committing all sort of technical gambits. He is from Chicago, after all. But what I am worried about is the fallout from all this that is about to hit.

Apparently the meeting between Clinton and Edwards after the debate was entirely about Antonin Rezko, the slumlord for whom Obama claims but "five hours of legal work." That's not the case. Their relationship goes back 16 years. I have no idea what is about to break but I am sure it won't be flattering even if it is not illegal.

In effect, Mr. Obama is a hypocrite. I had thought Obama guilty of poor judgment but I am concluding that that assessment was wrong. It is far worse. I think I know realize what Bill Clinton meant by "fairy tale." Frankly I had not seen it before. Please don't accuse me of buying into the Clinton spin because I am intelligent enough to use multiple sources of information and I have a long memory for history and politics.

I'll provide the Obama-Lieberman narrative in full in another comment due to a constraint of time and urge to sleep but there is a link above that points out the basic premise.

I should have added in my last comment if not in my original letter to Norm that I do intend to work tirelessly for John Edwards. This work transcends any political campaign, it is a mission to reclaim the fundamental standards that have govern the Republic - standards of fairness and tolerance and it is a crusade against injustice and poverty. Ending one requires ending the other and only John Edwards understands that.

Charles Lemos San Francisco, CA

Hi Charles. I have to say I admire the time, effort and thought you're putting into this.

But regarding Clinton vs. Obama, what about the war? In the beginning, Clinton voted for it, but Obama had the brains to see the war was a lie and the balls to speak out against it.

Of all the democratic candidates, isn't Clinton the one that would draw the Iraq bloodbath out the longest? Isn't Clinton the most hesitant to condemn the war?

I have to say my advocacy of Obama (based on his Iraq stance back when it wasn't the popular thing to do) is dying a death of a thousand small cuts - and it never took a genius to figure out the war was based on deception anyways. It doesn't help that it seems Obama has been "bought" by almost as many corporate interests as Clinton. Which brings me to my second question:

Have you followed the money? Clinton seems bought and paid for by the same types of people who are profiting from the hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq. I don't see how voting for that would be the right thing to do (unless the only other option is a "bomb, bomb bomb Iran" Republican, I guess...)

At any rate, I agree that Edwards is starting to seem like our only hope. (How did that happen? Was everyone so busy buying off the chick and the black dude that they forgot all about the white guy with a southern accent?)

At any rate, I agree that Edwards is starting to seem like our only hope. (How did that happen? Was everyone so busy buying off the chick and the black dude that they forgot all about the white guy with a southern accent?)

Yes. I have to admit I fell for this too. The whole "message to the world" narrative to let them know that we aren't the most bigoted nation, electing another rich white guy. I was enamored of obama. His story he was putting out there was interesting, and seemed like he had the most political clout to do anything. However, his lack of structure, planning, or even wrong stances on issues has destroyed a lot of my admiration for him.

Hillary talks strategy and issues, but I don't agree with how much money she has from dirty hands. The reason why her 1994 health care reform failed was not due to government failure, as John Edwards puts it "We had Democratic President, Democratic Senate, Democratic Congress, and we still couldn't get health care reform due to lobbyist influence."

The War: As much as I hate to say it, the next president will have little to do with when we leave Iraq. They are being handed a broken porcelin teapot, and can either take the time to glue it together, or throw it in the trash, and let the middle east deal with it (which means, indirectly, we'll still be dealing with it). The war has less to do with actual fighting now, and more to do with public policy in Iraq. If the next president can fix that, bingo.

Honestly, Edwards support of the middle class and the working man could also work on Iraq (in my opinion), due to our refusal to let Iraqi's rebuild their own infrastructure, and so far, we've hired American Contractors to do it.

I should have added in my last comment if not in my original letter to Norm that I do intend to work tirelessly for John Edwards. This work transcends any political campaign, it is a mission to reclaim the fundamental standards that have govern the Republic - standards of fairness and tolerance and it is a crusade against injustice and poverty. Ending one requires ending the other and only John Edwards understands that.

On that note, everyone should read the note from MLK III to Edwards warning: PDF link. It's an amazing letter and is the only Endorsement of the campaign that has meant anything to me.

The War: As much as I hate to say it, the next president will have little to do with when we leave Iraq.

You had better hate to say that, Magnolia, because I strongly disagree. Bush has left the next President with a ticking time bomb in one hand and flaming napalm in the other. Last I saw, Clinton was still framing Iraq as a military problem (she is shifting, though, probably due to Obama/Edwards). Mishandling Iraq could be disastrous, and I think Clinton is the most likely to do that, not due to lack of experience, but due to lack of the intellectual skills needed, and especially out of complacence; something you might have in common with her.

On another tangent, I've been perusing the candidates' websites, and I find this sort of thing encouraging. They use language like keep and ensure that it remains, which hopefully indicates that changing or "improving" it via censorship or corporate involvement is off the table.

As a campaign tool, Barack's website is horrible though, and his "issues" list is nigh encyclopedic, with Iraq buried somewhere in the middle.

He might actually have some good ideas, but they are completely buried in rhetoric, the usual Democrat talking points, and superfluous information and dialogue.

I guess I wasn't clear, because I completely agree with you on Clinton and what she might do with Iraq. However, my only point was that a lot of people are calling for an immediate withdrawl from iraq, and disregard any other policy. This would be handing the napalm and time bomb to a random iraqi group.

You are right, it's not a military problem anymore. The only policy i've heard from obama is "no permenent bases", which is definately the right idea.

Obama's stance on technology seems to be the best, but Clinton is better on science (from the few tidbits they've mentioned such things). However, Net Neutrality will not pan out to be the dangerous thing it once was, with the 700 mhz spectrum going on sale today, FiOS, Satellite, and Cable all being different venues for connecting to the internet. Any company that doesn't have Net Neutrality will lose it's customers in droves. However, the first President to advocate nationwide internet access would get my vote

Neutrality will not pan out to be the dangerous thing it once was, with the 700 mhz spectrum going on sale today, FiOS, Satellite, and Cable all being different venues for connecting to the internet.

700 MHz - Too early to tell, but while Google isn't the Evil Empire, they don't exactly shit rainbows these days.
FiOS - Faster Phone Lines from the same old monopolies who want the Internet to be TV 2.0.
Satellite - Will never work due to speed-of-light latency
Cable - The Cable Monopoly vs Phone Company Monopoly game already exists, and all it produces are consumers who have a hard time figuring out which is the lesser of the two evils.

I wish I shared your confidence. There are a lot of people who can, who are, and who really want to surveil and censor the Internet to death. It's going to take more than Google Corp grabbing a telecom poker chip to protect it. AT&T et al are set to receive retroactive immunity, and they have already announced their intentions to filter all communications going through their network. The Great Firewall of China is starting to look like child's play compared to some of the Big Brother tech that might be coming out in virtually every major industrialized nation.

However, the first President to advocate nationwide internet access would get my vote

Actually, I'm not too keen on government-run Internet access... at least, nothing the government coordinates directly.

What would help would be legislation that encourages communication instead of restricting it (eg. making it illegal for service providers to charge or disconnect you for anything other than data transfer, tearing down and rebuilding the FCC to reflect the modern world, and repealing most of the DMCA and valuing privacy and culture libre over corporate profits... and while I'm dreaming I want my own rocket ship too)

As for giving Internets to low-income communities and the less fortunate, the government could give generous grants to local geeks and such... geeks love spreading the Internet love, and they can be very good at it.

And I bet Cory Doctorow would have some ideas...

But if you ask me, I'd say there's a better chance the Internet will become less free. Too many powerful interests still hold the reins, and while they'll never fully understand the Internet and its culture and economics, they will figure out how to destroy it... unless our elected representatives can stop them, and aye, there's the rub.

Regulating the internet is cutting the head off of a hydra. Look at illegal music downloading. First, Napster, which was killed due to it's central location. Then Limewire, Soulseek, Grokster, etc all replaced Napster. Each of those began to drop off one by one. Then Torrents. No centralized server to obtain and shut down (other than torrent search engines on other continents). Or allofmp3.com, which was russian, and only got shut down due to mastercard and visa no longer accepting payments through them. Now they've reopened only accepting paypal or other anon. payments. Each venue that gets regulated, two alternatives pop up.

As for government running the internet, that's not what I mean. I mean the government needs to make sure that all the cable and FiOS that is laid out throught the country needs to run to every household, and be open to any service provider. Buy the lines that have been laid by private companies from them and allow ANYONE to use the pipes. Internet access is so basic to business and the american economy now (the world economy especially), that everyone should have it, Like phone service.

Regulating the internet is cutting the head off of a hydra. Look at illegal music downloading.

Illegal music downloading hasn't been specifically regulated against. The DMCA basically just kludges old-fashioned copyright onto the Internet, and adds anti-circumvention laws.

The attack on music/video sharing has so far been perpetrated by civil lawsuits launched from the huge corporations, and they have had very limited effect specifically because nobody has legislated away our freedoms on the Internet, specifically because there isn't blanket monitoring and filtering.

And the fact that everyone thinks the Internet is perfectly invulnerable isn't helping. Resilient, yes, but not invulnerable.

Internet access is so basic to business and the american economy now (the world economy especially), that everyone should have it, Like phone service.

No argument there. But once the powers that be finally figure out packet inspection, IP addresses, the DNS system, etc, they'll figure out how they can keep bank.com and corporation.com working while restricting and monitoring everyone else. The Great Firewall of China had some effect, and it's actually a very primitive system (one similar to Comcast's simple torrent blocking, but also using a blacklist).

By "destroy the Internet" I meant "the Internet as we know it". They have lots of ways of taking control, from stuff like Comcast's current filtering, to "Trusted Computing". But nobody's just going to pull the plug, of course.

Anyways, don't take my word for it. Just wait and see.

By "destroy the Internet" I meant "the Internet as we know it". They have lots of ways of taking control, from stuff like Comcast's current filtering, to "Trusted Computing". But nobody's just going to pull the plug, of course.

Of course. We do need to watch for content filtering. There are inquiries by the FCC into Comcast filtering content and access now. The reason why I feel that computer networks will always be free is because computers will always be free. If you completely regulate the internet, another protocol will be invented, another portal will open. I do share your worry about the current internet though, and fear of what it could become in the United States.

There were a few comments by Frenetic that I wanted to respond to because they're brilliant.

There are no good answers on Iraq. While I am a historian by training, I also have an MBA and a MA in International Affairs. In international theory I tend to be a blend of liberalism tempered by a dose of realism. The historical perspective on Iraq is that it is a legacy state, an artificial state carved out of the old Ottoman Empire at Versailles in 1919. Artificial states tend to fail. Africa is the prime example. But of all the states carved out of the old Ottoman Empire, three stand out as doomed to failure: Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq. Lebanon has been self-destructing since the 1950s and most acutely since the 1980s. Turkey has held together only through its militarism and its willingness to use repression. That same formula held for Iraq until we intervene. Now the genie is out of the bottle, an apt metaphor given it's Baghdad we're talking about, but there is no way to rebottle that genie. Repackage perhaps as Biden has suggested in loose three part Confederation and worth a try but realistically speaking, I sense the Kurds want out, the Shiites want control and the Sunnis want things the way they were. The Iraqi Christians, two million strong before the war, are lost in the shuffle. Detroit may be their best bet.

The war in Iraq is likely in a lull right now for a number of reasons: the Sunnis switched sides going from fighting the Americans to fighting al-Qaeda; the territorial disputes have been largely settled, that is the ethnic-cleansing that has taken place has partitioned country de facto; Iranian-backed Shiites militias have opted to take a wait and see approach what happens this year in the US but also Tehran does not want to give Bush an excuse to pulverize it and the surge has restored American control over a larger area of Baghdad. But the war is only in a lull, it is a respite being used by all parties to rest and re-arm.

The US seems to have made a decision that the Sunnis merit being saved. Hence, we're arming them and allowing the Ba'athist Party officials to reenter legitimate civil society. That is likely from self-interest and from push back from the Saudis and other Sunni states that fear an Arab Shiite state on their doorstep. It spells trouble for the Gulf States in particular. Bahrain, most acutely, since it has a Sunni sheik and a majority Shiite population. But Qatar and Kuwait also have large Shiite populations as does Saudi Arabia in its oil field region on the Gulf.

Taking this all in account, where do we go from here? The liberal in me says let them decide it. Edwards is right, an immediate pullback. For the US, this also makes long-term strategic interests because Iraq is a sinkhole. It's bleeding the country dry. Even though US influence in the region is bound to suffer, and let's face it without oil life as we know it is not possible, the risks of staying in Iraq outweigh the gains from staying in Iraq.

The dose of geo-political realist in me would argue we need to engage the region including both Iran and Syria and arrange a partition of Iraq that all parties can live with. The problem here is Turkey who views an independent Kurdistan a mortal threat which it is.

Turkey is a huge problem. On the only hand it is a secular Islamic state despite the growing power of fundamentalism. But Turkey is a legacy state as well. Turks are spread out across the former Ottoman Empire. Bulgaria is 10% Turkish. A bigger problem is Cyprus which Turkey invaded in 1974 to protect the Turkish northern third of the island. Turkey remains in Cyprus to this day. And then there were those unsavory Armenian genocides, the first in 1895 and the second in 1917-18. At least a third of historical Armenia is still part of Turkey.

And then come the Kurds. The Kurds are the largest ethnic group in the world not to have their own state. Ten million of them and 60% of them live in Turkey. Do you see the problem?

Dealing with the colonial legacy is the biggest headache facing much of the world and it is why we prop up failed states because the alternative is chaos. US foreign policy has opposed the creation of new nation states effectively since the 1970s. We resisted East Timor, in part to placate the Indonesians but also because if one new state comes into being then others might follow suit.

While the US espouse the fall of communism, it did not advocate for the split up of the USSR apart from the Baltics which remained recognized as independent states from when they were independent in the inter-war period. Clinton's initial policy on Yugoslavia was to try to keep it together. Mine was the opposite. Break it apart. Quickly. Undo the tension and the international system will gravitate again towards to stability because it always does.

I recognize that both the Treaty of Berlin (1885) and the Treaty of Versailles (1919) are responsible for the tension in the international system today. From Sudan to Burma to Iraq to Rwanda to Pakistan, the problems stems from this pervasive legacy of colonialism that created artificial states.

Take Ethiopia. Once Eritrea was separated, a thirty year was ended. Border tensions remain but large-scale fighting has ceased. The deadliest war since WW II is now being fought in the former Zaire. Sudan and Zimbabwe are a mess. Liberia, Sierra Leone, Angola and Mozambique are just beginning to emerge from twenty year wars. The Ivory Coast, once Africa's miracle, has plunged into civil war. Chad, the CAR, Niger, Nigeria, the Sudan, Somalia have always been tense. Kenya is on the verge of chaos. This is the result of colonialism. Rwanda April 1994 only the most painful example.

So my thoughts on Iraq remain what they were for Yugoslavia. Break it apart. Quickly. Undo the tension and the international system will gravitate again towards to stability because it always does. The transition is destabilizing and painful but once exited, the Westphalian international system aims for balance and stability. All of this leads me to your comment on first pass the post systems, which was Brilliant!

Unless you have been exposed to how the rules of any game are written and how different rules lead to different outcomes, you likely have little idea on why different systems have such different outcomes. The most important classes I ever took in my decade long stint in graduate school were the ones on game theory and in particular one called Policy-Making Procedures. Recognizing how different electoral rules provide different electoral results is of the utmost importance.

Look at the differences in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. Iowa and Nevada are both caucuses but they have slightly different rules. A brief example and I will show you why John Edwards got over 30% of the precinct delegates in Iowa and only 4% in Nevada. Both states have threshold/viability rules, so a second choice matters. In Iowa, candidates that fail to meet the 15% threshold can try to persuade others to join their camp. One key difference is that in Nevada, only supporters of non-viable candidates will be able to switch to a different corner during the realignment period. That will cut down on the gamesmanship whereby precinct captains of viable candidates direct a small number of people to a rival corner in order to change the delegate count. So Edwards supporters in Nevada where they failed to meet the viability test could not bring others in only go out and join either Clinton or Obama. Rules in Iowa kept Edwards in the game, rules in Nevada pushed him out.

The rules of the game matter. One reason Obama is doing well is because he appeals to independents who by the virtue of being “independents” are more apt to buy the unity message. To date all primaries and caucuses have been open ones. But there are 13 closed ones coming up, only open to registered Democrats. The biggest are NY, PA, AZ, OH, MA, GA. That one change of the rule erases at least 50% of Obama’s support.

To really change the rules of the games in the United States means one thing. The real fight is in the state legislatures. That’s were most of the power actually is because that’s were the Founding Fathers put it. I miss Molly Ivins because I learned so much from her by reading her columns. There was a reason why she paid attention to Austin. It mattered. I have always wondered why state capitals are tucked away in out-of-the-way places: Harrisburg, Tallahassee, Baton Rouge, Austin, Sacramento, Ann Arbor, Springfield, Frankfort, Columbia, Sacramento, Olympia, Salem, Topeka, Albany, Columbus and Juneau to name the most egregious examples. Imagine the difference if it were Los Angeles or San Francisco versus Sacramento. Or Philadelphia and not Harrisburg.

There is a scandal brewing in Juneau that threatens to blow Ted Stevens out of the Senate but because it is in Juneau it is nicely hidden and tucked away. With luck, the whole episode of the pervasive corruption up in Alaska and the Rich Bastard’s Club (I kid you not, that’s call they themselves) will come out in the open and end Ted Stevens’ career.

But back to the state legislature, The Constitution in Article One Section X delimits the authority of the states, largely it does not allow them an independent foreign, monetary or trade policy. Article Four lays out the powers of the states and the rights of citizens from one state to another. But The Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, the last in the Bill of Rights, also grants that any power not expressively stated in The Constitution remains with the people and the states.

That’s why the Tenth Amendment is one of the most important and perhaps its most overlooked. One of the successes of the evangelical movement is that they began targeting the state legislature after Roe v Wade in 1973. Decisions such as that ultimately led to the rise of people like Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay to Congress. And it must remembered that it is the state legislatures that decide how to reapportion a state’s Congressional delegation. As the state legislature became more conservative, they carved out increasingly conservative disticts. And when coupled with the first past the post electoral system, an extremist like Tom Delay who can win a safe district could find a home in Congress. A proportional system would give a far different outcome.

Rules matter. How you play a game is determined by them. The Republicans play it well, the Democrats not so much but they are getting better.

Charles Lemos

San Francisco, CA