So, if you are raising money for a Foundation is it still corruption?

An interesting article in the NY Times on Bill Clinton's efforts on behalf of a mining deal, and the resultant donation.

There are some real gems within this piece, but aside from the 'way the world works' time line of the article, there are a few lesser details that I find interesting.

A spokesman for Mr. Clinton said the former president knew that Mr. Giustra had mining interests in Kazakhstan but was unaware of "any particular efforts" and did nothing to help. Mr. Giustra said he was there as an "observer only" and there was "no discussion" of the deal with Mr. Nazarbayev or Mr. Clinton.

But Moukhtar Dzhakishev, president of Kazatomprom, said in an interview that Mr. Giustra did discuss it, directly with the Kazakh president, and that his friendship with Mr. Clinton "of course made an impression." Mr. Dzhakishev added that Kazatomprom chose to form a partnership with Mr. Giustra's company based solely on the merits of its offer.

After The Times told Mr. Giustra that others said he had discussed the deal with Mr. Nazarbayev, Mr. Giustra responded that he "may well have mentioned my general interest in the Kazakhstan mining business to him, but I did not discuss the ongoing" efforts...

Both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Giustra at first denied that any such meeting occurred. Mr. Giustra also denied ever arranging for Kazakh officials to meet with Mr. Clinton. Wednesday, after The Times told them that others said a meeting, in Mr. Clinton's home, had in fact taken place, both men acknowledged it.

So over and above the transparent whoring of his status as a former president, we get the continuation of a pattern of bold faced and easily disproved lies.

Billy Carter brought at least some small amount of shame to his brother and the White House by attempting to market a PBR knock-off under the label of "Billy Beer". Note that it wasn't "Carter Beer", or "Hey, y'all, my bubbas the F'ing president and all Beer". Just "Billy Beer". Poor Billy. So unsophisticated. That's not how to exploit nearness to power. I would give an exhaustive list of the Bush family's rather comprehensive demonstration of how it is done, but after some quick research to flesh out the list I found that several dozen pages would only provide the most rudimentary sketch. (Nazi war profiteer druggie Whitewater smuggler treasonous terrorist loving Iran Contra jail bait scum)

Just think of all the glory that awaits us with yet another opportunist Bill who is related to the president.

George Lakoff on the "Issues"

From The Huffington Post:

To the editors of the New York Times, the quality of leadership seems not to be an "issue." The ability to unite the country is not an "issue." What Obama calls the empathy deficit -- attunement to the experience and needs of real people -- is not an "issue." Honesty is not an "issue." Trust is not an "issue." Moral judgment is not an "issue." Values are not "issues." Adherence to democratic ideals -- rather than political positioning, triangulation, and incrementalism -- are not "issues." Inspiration, a call to a higher purpose, and a transcendence of interest-based politics are not "issues."

It is time to understand what counts as an "issue," to whom, and why.

In Thinking Points, the handbook for progressives that the Rockridge Institute staff and I wrote last year, we began by analyzing Ronald Reagan's strengths as a politician. According to his chief strategist, Richard Wirthlin, Reagan realized that most voters do not vote primarily on the basis of policies, but rather on (1) values, (2) connection, (3) authenticity, (4) trust, and (5) identity. That is, Reagan spoke about his values, and policies for him just exemplified values. He connected viscerally with people. He was perceived as authentic, as really believing what he said. As a result, people trusted him and identified with him. Even if they had different positions on issues, they knew where he stood. Even when his economic policies did not produce a "Morning in America," voters still felt a connection to him because he spoke to what they wanted America to be. That was what allowed Reagan to gain the votes of so many independents and Democrats.

There is a reason that Obama recently spoke of Reagan. Reagan understood that you win elections by drawing support from independents and the opposite side. He understood what unified the country so that he could lead it according to his vision. His vision was a radical conservative one, a vision devastating for the country and contradicted by his economic policies.

Obama understands the importance of values, connection, authenticity, trust, and identity.

But his vision is deeply progressive. He proposes to lead in a very different direction than Reagan. Crucially, he adds to that vision a streetwise pragmatism: his policies have to do more than look good on paper; they have to bring concrete material results to millions of struggling Americans in the lower and middle classes. They have to meet the criteria of a community organizer.

The Clintonian policy wonks don't seem to understand any of this. They have trivialized Reagan's political acumen as an illegitimate triumph of personality over policy. They confuse values with programs. They have underestimated authenticity and trust.

Florida: One Small Step for the Primaries

My gut feeling is that Tuesday will soon prove to be a big day in Florida, not so much for specific Democratic candidates because they can't win any delegates, but now we can begin to eliminate some scenarios for the general election. In other words, my intuition is that Florida was a "one small step for the nominations, one giant leap for the general elections" primary.

First, let us all breathe a collective sigh of relief that Giuliani is now out of the picture having finished 3rd in his most crucial state. I'm sure I'm not the only one who genuinely feared his being elected to president. The last thing we need is a "tougher" on "terror" president who also happens to have a vindictive streak. Give me a simpleton or a religious zealot over that any day of the week. Even better than any of these latter possibilities is the guy who is probably going to get the nomination...

Second, of all the evils coming from the Republican side, McCain is by far the least and I think Florida is going to seal the nomination for him. I feel that he is a sincere individual who lives by principle. However, his greatest hamartia, in my opinion, is his desire to escalate in Iraq. While his reasons are logical, the implementation and results of continued action in Iraq are likely to be expensive and sloppy (i.e. more of the same). Barring a well-timed terrorist attack closer to the elections, I have a feeling that his militarism will be his undoing.

Third, Florida has in recent history been a Republican state. But the turnout yesterday was decidedly in favor of the Democrats. Note that Florida was a closed primary for both sides, somewhat discrediting the notion that Democrats have enjoyed a numerical advantage in the primaries because they have remained open to independents.

Lastly, we can probably be confident that the two most centrist candidates will once again get the nominations--but I think I'm going to vote for Obama or Edwards despite the inevitable. I feel like I need to cast a protest vote against the Clinton campaign and firmly against the war right now, just to make myself feel better. I'll vote for Senator Clinton come November.

In general, though, relief.

Democrats Could Lose in NovemberProgressives Have Already Lost

I got an email this morning from Eli Pariser, Executive Director of MoveOn.org with the Subject Line, "We could lose." His email links to a web page and video with the heading: "Contribute to Victory 2008 to put a progressive in the White House."

The "we" that could lose is ostensibly the Democrats. But what's this about putting a progressive in the White House? The media has effectively narrowed down the Democratic field to two candidates, each backed by tens of millions in campaign funds, while the party's nominee for Vice President in 2004 is now merely an afterthought after just three states have cast their votes. Who is the progressive that MoveOn is referring to, Dennis Kucinich?

Democrats losing in November -- as far-fetched as it may sound with the worst president in history the current leader of the Republican Party -- is a distinct possibility. Latest polls show both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama losing to John McCain in a national election. Clinton and Obama fare much better against Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani, and Republican voters seem to understand this. "As they come to believe he is the candidate Democrats fear most, they'll probably find it even easier to vote for him in the coming primaries." After all, Republicans like to win, unlike Democrats.

John McCain and Barack Obama, at least according to the conventional wisdom, are both attracting independent voters. The problem, at least as far as progressives should be concerned, is that both McCain and Obama are courting moderate conservatives, not progressives. As always, progressives are expected to hold their noses and accept what the Democratic Party has given them for the past two decades: a moderate conservative alternative to the other party's moderate conservative candidate. Except the last Republican campaigned as a moderate (compassionate) conservative then turned out to be a died-in-the-wool, free market, shock doctrine neoconservative.

If voters do ultimately get a McCain-Clinton or McCain-Obama race, progressives have already lost this election. But anyone would be better than Bush, right?

The Miniature Earth

A friend recently sent this to me. Take a deep breath and then click a link.

The idea of reducing the world’s population to a community of only 100 people is very useful and important. It makes us easily understand the differences in the world.

There are many types of reports that use the Earth’s population reduced to 100 people, especially in the Internet. Ideas like this should be more often shared, especially nowadays when the world seems to be in need of dialogue and understanding among different cultures, in a way that it has never been before.

The text that originated this webmovie was published on May 29, 1990 with the title “State of the Village Report”, and it was written by Donella Meadows, who passed away in February 2000. Nowadays Sustainability Institute, through Donella’s Foundation, carries on her ideas and projects.

The text used here has been modified. The statistics have been updated based on specialized publications, and mainly reports on the World’s population provided by The UN, PRB and others.

The Miniature Earth website was first published in 2001, since than it has been seen by more than 2 million people around the globe and linked by more than 20,000 websites.

This is the third version of the project.

Clinton & Media Win, Voters Lose

With 90 percent of precincts reporting, Hilary Clinton has won Nevada, getting 51 percent to Barack Obama's 45 percent. John Edwards, who was polling as high as 27 percent at the beginning of the week, received less than 4 percent.

The mainstream media has finally gotten what it always wanted - two celebrity candidates. For the past year now, the MSM has been reporting on the Democratic field as if it were a two-person race, even when there were other more experienced, and some might argue more qualified candidates running, e.g. Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Joe Biden, Senator Chris Dodd and Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

The focus on Clinton and Obama, to the exclusion of the others, didn't change after Edwards finished second in Iowa. In fact, it got even worse. The fact that Biden and Dodd dropped out after a caucus was held in just one small, mostly White state only reinforced the perception that the media was right to ignore their campaigns. After the first primary in New Hampshire, Richardson dropped out. And for the most recent debate in Las Vegas this Tuesday, only three candidates were even invited, even though Kucinich has not dropped out and a judge had initially ruled that he should be included. Incidentally, in a focus group conducted after Las Vegas, most voters felt Edwards won. The media didn't care.

Now that Edwards has been poorly received in Nevada, the media has what it promised all along: a race between a woman and a black man. Certainly the candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are historic and provide sufficient reason to celebrate, but what about the voters in the other 47 states? Their choices were narrowed down from eight to two before they knew much about the candidates who were running.

What does it say about the nominating process when the only candidates taken seriously by the corporate media raised over $100 million before a single primary vote was cast?

There are just three scheduled debates left before Super Tuesday, February 5:

• Myrtle Beach, SC next Monday
• Boca Rotan, FL on Sun, Jan 27
• Hollywood, CA on Thu, Jan 31.

I think its safe to assume that neither Clinton nor Obama will have received a majority of delegates by then, and Edwards will still be running. Is it safe to assume that John Edwards will be invited to these last three debates? If Edwards continues to push the party's agenda forward, as he has for the past year, and "wins" these debates, will voters notice if the media doesn't care?

Nevada Up For Grabs

With just three days left until its caucus, Nevada appears to be up for grabs.

A new poll by the Reno Gazette-Journal shows a neck-and-neck three-way race among Democrats for Saturday's caucus. On the Republican side, U.S. Sen. John McCain has taken his first lead in Nevada of the election season, and Mitt Romney, who has been working Nevada harder than any other Republican, is trailing in fourth place.

A look at the top line results:

Barack Obama: 32 percent
Hillary Clinton: 30 percent
John Edwards: 27 percent

John McCain: 22 percent
Rudy Giuliani: 18 percent
Mike Huckabee: 16 percent
Mitt Romney: 15 percent
Fred Thompson: 11 percent
Ron Paul: 6 percent
Duncan Hunter: 1 percent

Since Mitt Romney won Michigan yesterday, three states have given us three different winners in the Republican primaries. And pundits aren't yet ruling out Rudy Giuliani, or perhaps even a new draft candidate in the Republican race. (Newt Gingrich?)



Could the same thing happen with the Democrats, i.e. three states and three different winners? After last night's debate it seems possible, especially given that the difference between the three candidates is within the margin of error. Also, "Saturday's Democratic caucus may attract no more than 50,000 people," and over 6,000 new voters have registered in the last two weeks in Las Vegas alone.

If Edwards does win, it would essentially re-enfranchise voters in the other 47 states, who likely don't know much about the candidates and still aren't prepared to choose the most electable among them.

You wouldn't know it from media coverage, but the nominating process is not winner-take all. So far, Edwards has 18 delegates to Obama's 25 -- 2000+ delegates are needed to win the nomination.

It's still anybody's game.

Obama Touts Buffet on Taxes

Did you catch what Sen. Barack Obama said in tonight's Democratic Presidential Debate?

If my friend and Hillary's friend Warren Buffet makes $46 million last year and he is paying a lower rate on, a lower tax rate than his secretary, there is something fundamentally unjust about that. I think. He acknowledges it. By the way, he has offered $1 million to any CEO of a Fortune 500 company who can prove that they pay a higher tax rate than their secretary. Nobody has taken him up on the offer.

I missed Buffet's challenge when he made it, so I had to look this one up for myself. Here is what he said in June of last year:

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion, said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 percent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 percent.”

Mr Buffett, who runs the investment group Berkshire Hathaway and is widely regarded as the world’s most successful investor, said that he was a Democrat because Republicans are more likely to think: “I’m making $80 million a year – God must have intended me to have a lower tax rate.”

Mr Buffett said that a Republican proposal to eliminate elements of inheritance tax, which raises about $30 billion a year from the assets of about 12,000 rich families, would broaden the disparity between rich and poor. He added that the Republicans would seek to recover lost revenue by increasing taxes for the less prosperous.

He said: “You could take that $30 billion and give $1,000 to 30 million poor families. Or should you favour the 12,000 estates and make 30 million families pay an extra $1,000?”

Mr Buffet extended his argument in November in testimony to the Senate Finance Committee.

"A meaningful estate tax is needed to prevent our democracy from becoming a dynastic plutocracy."

Buffett says he will bet any Forbes 400 member $1 million (proceeds to charity) that the average federal tax rate (income and payroll) paid by The Forbes 400 member is less than the average rate of their secretaries and receptionists. "So far only three close friends, all 400 members, have made the calculation for me," he tells Forbes in an e-mail exchange. "They all came up with results similar to mine but have no interest in being identified."

(Curious to find out how some Forbes 400 members responded to Buffet's challenge? Click the link.)

As a member of the other 99 percent, I appreciate Mr Buffet's remarks. I believe that tax reform is critical to preserving our democracy, as well as our prosperity as a nation. (You may recall that I've written on this subject before.) I'm encouraged to know that one of the world's richest men gets this.

Paul Krugman wrote last August that, "Mr. Edwards has offered a detailed, sensible plan for tax reform, and some serious antipoverty initiatives," and that led to my eventual support of John Edwards. In fact, I support Edwards now more than ever, despite the fact that he is up against an insurmountable financial hurdle and a corporate media that won't give him the time of day.

I'm just glad to know that Sen. Obama appreciates the need for tax reform, too.

John Edwards is the Only One

While the corporate media blackout of John Edwards (not to mention Dennis Kucinich) gets worse, Edwards continues to tirelessly campaign in South Carolina and Nevada. It will be interesting to see how the media reports on tonight's debate in Las Vegas, now that a judge has ordered that Kucinich must be included.

Today, the Edwards campaign began airing four television spots in South Carolina which highlight how Edwards differs from the candidates by asking the following questions.

Which Democrat opposed NAFTA and other trade deals that send American jobs overseas?

Which Democrat has never taken a dime of campaign money from Washington lobbyists?

Who's the only Democrat who would ban Washington lobbyists from the White House staff?

Who's the only Democrat that beats all the Republicans in the recent CNN poll?

You know the answer.

What's So Stunning About Clinton's (Narrow) Win in New Hampshire?

On the NewsHour this evening, Jim Lehrer called Hillary Clinton's win yesterday in New Hampshire a "stunning comeback." Several dozen other news sources echoed those words, including the Chicago Tribune, the BBC, the Financial Times, and The Washington Post, calling Clinton's win "one of the most stunning comeback victories in modern American politics." MTV News called it "a shocking win."

Stunning? Shocking?! I was mildly surprised, but not stunned or shocked. Clinton won, but not by that much. Is the MSM overreacting or just trying to make the New Hampshire results seem more newsworthy?

My friend, Peter, texted me at about 9:30pm EST last night:

WTF - Clinton closed an 11 point gap? Bad polls? Her loss in Iowa energized her base? Sold her soul to Satan, again?

The 13 point swing -- from down 11 to win by 2 -- did seem big, but polling data has been predictably unreliable in recent years. Remember those exit polls in 2004 that predicted Kerry would beat Bush? (We'll never know for sure whether Bush won fairly in 2004 or 2000, but that's another story.)

A friend emailed me the following this morning:

Why in the WORLD are all the pundits saying Hillary "won the New Hampshire Primary" and is "back on top." She and Obama tied, both receiving 19 delegates from New Hampshire, and Obama still has the overall lead in number of delegates. Where are the pundits/journalists/talking heads getting their numbers?

I was wondering the same thing myself. So I took a closer look at the numbers.

The difference between the two top finishers was just 7,479 votes. If anyone had told me a month ago that Obama would lose to Clinton by just three points in New Hampshire, I would have scoffed.

Clinton, Obama and Edwards all collected delegates, so I wouldn't rule any of them out based on these numbers. If anything, I would argue that it's a three-way race, but that's about all.

So why were the polls wrong? There is the conventional wisdom, courtesy of the New York Times. I would add that poll respondents were reacting more to Iowa than to the candidates, and pundits assumed that the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire were more similar than they really are.

How will voters in Nevada and South Carolina respond to the results in Iowa and New Hampshire? I'm now left wondering, can we expect more "stunning" results in the coming weeks?

One Half of One Percent

"Up until now one half of 1% of the country has voted. Ninety-nine percent plus have not voted and we need to hear from them. We have had too much in America of people's voices not being heard."
--John Edwards, speaking to supporters in Manchester, NH last night

Two small, predominantly White states have voted and they've decided that they are undecided, having chosen four different winners: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain and Mike Huckabee.

A rational person might conclude that neither party is close to deciding who its nominee will be, but you wouldn't know that from what the media is saying, as FAIR points out in "Media to Voters - It's Over: Pundits rushing to end primaries and preempt voter choices."

David Broder of the Washington Post, Jonathan Alter of Newsweek and Tim Russert of NBC are all guilty of suggesting the race in both parties is practically over. As are David Brooks and Adam Nagourney of the New York Times and David Gergen, former advisor to Presidents Clinton, Reagan, Ford and Nixon. (FAIR gives props to Keith Olbermann of MSNBC for asking questions about "what passes for conventional wisdom in election coverage.")

If the mainstream media were doing its job -- spending less time handicapping the horses and more on reporting their positions and proposals -- American voters might realize this simple fact: the primaries are far from over. As FAIR points out.

In 1992, Bill Clinton lost the first five contests, but somehow managed to win the White House nonetheless. This very recent history would suggest that, at a very minimum, campaign reporters refrain from handicapping the outcome of the nominating process in early January. After all, it's voters, not the news media, who are supposed to elect the next president.

Edwards: "War on Terror" a "Bumper Sticker, Not a Plan"

In today's Huffington Post, Ian Welsh writes about John Edwards on foreign policy. Unlike Obama and Clinton, only Edwards has opposed growing the Army, calling the "war on terror" a "bumper sticker, not a plan."

Edwards basic frame is far more progressive and forward looking than Obama's or Clinton's. He doesn't believe in a "war on terror" and he doesn't want to add 92,000 new troops.

The US spends over 50% of the world's military budget and is losing two wars to rabble, yet Obama and Clinton think it should raise more troops? Does "good money after bad" mean nothing to these folks?

The US can't afford current policies. It's in serious imperial overstretch, massively in debt, losing its industrial base, maintaining an army whose effectiveness is extremely questionable and losing its technological lead in multiple fields. And the "war on terror" has led to a massive increase in terrorism--it is a complete and utter failure on every metric.

And John Edwards is the only one of the three proposing anything really different. The only one really proposing "change"... saying the war on terror is counterproductive was the equivalent of saying "the emperor has no clothes".

And only Edwards had the guts, honestly and wisdom to say it. Likewise he is the only one of the three candidates not pandering to fear and the military lobby by promising new troops, logically asking why the US would need them if it's leaving Iraq?

Welsh goes on to point out that Rasmussen daily tracking polls show that Clinton is losing support nationally, and her numbers are going to Edwards, not Obama.

It looks like Obama will win New Hampshire today, but Edwards should finish second or a close third. If national trends continue, he should continue to gain support at Clinton's expense. I suppose this makes an Obama/Edwards tickets more than just a pipe dream?