Candidate Watching

A grassroots effort to get Bill Richardson nominated for Vice-President has been launched. I am totally jazzed!!

Please sign and pass it on to everyone you know.

Here is the petition:

Governor Bill Richardson recently dropped out of the race for the Democratic Nomination. There is not a reason in the world why this former Congressman, US Ambassador to the UN, US Secretary of Energy, and current Governor of New Mexico should not be chosen to be the Vice Presidential Candidate for the Democratic Party.

Please join me in signing this, and sharing it with other supporters!
Let's spread the word and get as many signatures as we can.

Here is the correct link for the petition:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/RichardsonforVP/

A Facebook group was started.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=16653170461

Bill Richardson for Vice-President BLOG:

http://richardson4vp.blogspot.com/

From William Cerf:

In my view he IS the best candidate for Vice-President of the United States I’m deeply sad that he has decided to drop out of the Presidential race. He does however have his priorities straight. Convening the new session of the New Mexico state legislature is his top priority. Taking care of business on the home front is his top priority. If he were Vice-President of the United States, his top priority would be to take care of business. If you think about it, that has always been his top priority; which is why he is such an effective person; as an international negotiator or any other post he takes. It does not really matter happens during the silly season that some folks dignify by calling a primary nominating process; I’m going to work to get Bill Richardson on the Democratic Party ticket. I want the wonks who look at such things to know that this is the kind of person I want as my Vice-President. Additionally, I have a lot of friends and acquaintances who busted their guts in miserable weather to get him on the ballot in New York State. I want that to count for something; this is just the beginning!!

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Disappoints

Joel S. Hirschhorn

RFK, Jr. has disappointed millions of liberals, progressives and environmentalists by endorsing Hillary Clinton.

RFK, Jr. once said: “the Republicans are 95 percent corrupt and the Democrats are 75 percent corrupt.” This has been widely quoted because of its honest assessment of the corrupt two-party system.

He has also pointed out: "While communism is the control of business by government, fascism is the control of government by business. …The biggest threat to American democracy is corporate power. …our most visionary political leaders have warned the American public against the domination of government by corporate power. That warning is missing in the national debate right now. Because so much corporate money is going into politics, the Democratic Party itself has dropped the ball. They just quash discussion about the corrosive impact of excessive corporate power on American democracy."

Those these statements were made some time ago, a few days ago on November 28 he talked about the impact of industry on environmental agencies: “It’s been a revolving door of plunder.” Kennedy saved special scorn for “the negative and indolent press of this country,” which he said has become controlled by corporate interests in the last 20 years. “Americans have become the best-entertained, least-informed people on earth,” Kennedy said. He also said five companies control 80 percent of newspapers and almost all radio, and those corporations are not in business to tell news thoroughly or fairly. “The only ideology they represent is their own pockets,” Kennedy said. So his criticism of the corporate plutocracy seems as strong as ever.

First Woman, First Black, First Latino, or First Honest President?

Joel S. Hirschhorn

The phrase honest politician has become an oxymoron. We should not be impressed by the prospect of having the first woman, first black or first Latino president. What would be far more radical would be to have the first honest president, if not ever, certainly in a very long time.

Presidents in recent memory have been excellent liars, contributing mightily to our culture of dishonesty. Bill Clinton had the audacity to look right into the TV camera and blatantly lie to the American public. George W. Bush has probably set a record for official lying, though it might take many decades to fully document them. Carl M. Cannon saw the bigger truth: “posterity will judge [George W. Bush] not so much by whether he told the truth but whether he recognized what the truth actually was.”

Things have gotten so bad that hardly anyone can even imagine an honest president. But if we don’t expect an honest president, how can we expect to trust government?

Don Nash made these insightful observations, “If America was ever faced with a politician who spoke truth to the people, no-one would know what to make of the oddity. This politician could probably not get elected to office. Sadly, Americans can’t handle the truth. …Lies, then, are the consequential destruction of American democracy. Little by very little, the lies and lying politicians have chipped away at America’s Constitution and the American form of government.”

Three cheers for Al Gore and the UN! They blend for a Nobel Peace Prize. Last I heard, Vice-President Gore is not planning to be President. Maybe it’s a bit of reality check for us Americans. The man’s too big to think in terms of one mere nation, much as he is attached to it, much as he’s been hooked on politics. For someone who grew up a Beltway lad to parents who made their own mark on politics and stayed true to their Carthage, Tennessee roots, he knows better than most how a person can be lured to the Big Seat and still be skewered.
Is it the Enlightenment? He said as much in his most recent book, before his followers started salivating over “An Inconvenient Truth.” But forgive me. Doesn’t reasoning trump campaigning? Of course, it would be neat to have a person in the Oval Office who can think in world-wide terms. And such a person could carry influence with a like-minded electorate. So! Is it the Electoral College. That takes quite a bit of thinking but I’ll move on. Is it the Economy, Stupid! Old but still relevant. Or Education?
Without an enlightened population who understands that economy means more than the price of rice at WalMart, without an enlightened citizenry who understands that energy is more than CAFÉ standards, without voters who appreciate the meaning of empathy, where are we? Could it be said that Al Gore is becoming the Great Educator? Others have been president and were great communicators, great administrators, great obfuscators, great prevaricators, or whatever. The White House may be a bully pulpit, but preaching is not teaching.

Originally posted on Maria Energia (http://mariaenergia.blogspot.com) on September 10, 2007

Comedian, satirist, and former talk show host Al Franken is running for U.S. Senate in Minnesota on the DFL ticket (in MN, the Democratic Party is called the "DFL").

Last month, Franken made an appearance at the Crow Wing County/Morrison County DFL summer picnic. I grew up in Morrison County, so I attended and was impressed with the (relatively) huge turnout. I met Al, but more importantly he took the time to answer some questions I sent him via email about renewable energy and Minnesota’s role in the clean tech revolution.

Maria Energia: What specific renewable energy legislation do you want to see implemented at the federal level?

Al Franken: On a macro level, I'd like to implement a national cap and trade for carbon dioxide. This would make the cleanest renewables cheaper than fossil fuels and reward sequestration of CO2 in the form of planting acreage.

I'd like to see more federal investment in pilot projects for renewables. Representative Collin Peterson has put in several pilot projects for cellulosic ethanol that would be conducted here in Minnesota.

When I have said I want an Apollo Program for renewable energy, I'm talking about making these kinds of investments in renewables, including things like tidal and wave power. The United States has to go back to investing in research and development. This means identifying promising technologies and investing in them.

In thinking of past presidents who have gained their parties’ nomination, and then the nation’s trust, I think of their champions who helped put them there. And how that ultimately led to the orator turning into later candidate. Of course, there are notable exceptions. Remember Bill Clinton’s torturous marathon for Dukakis? But to make my point, think also of Reagan championing Goldwater. And there was Mario Cuomo who mesmerized me in his 1984 presentation for the Mondale/Ferraro ticket. It took me a long time to realize I would never see Cuomo on even a primary ballot. “Hamlet on the Hudson” they called him. Nevertheless, I always believed there was more than oratory to the man. So when I learned he had written an op-ed in the LA Times on September 3 , I sought it out.
Indeed, he had the clear syntax to explain how the country doesn’t need an imperial presidency. Then came his solution, and I quote: "First, Democrats should make clear that it is the president who is keeping the war in Iraq from ending."
But sad to say, there was no Second. Just the usual discussion of power of the purse and the obstruction of new Supreme Justices.
Nothing wrong with what the former New York governor said. I do not expect him to lay out an agenda for impeachment just because I believe there should be one. But the article made me understand just how little the MSM is involved in helping “the people” come to grips with their problems.

The Genius of Impeachment, by John Nichols, New Press 2006, pp 230.

This is NOT a book Review. Although I did what should be done to make one. For example, discovering the background of the author, considering other books on the subject, and wondering what type of reader might be interested in it.

Since John Nichols is widely known for articles in the Nation online and has gained more recognition after appearing with Bruce Fein on Bill Moyers’ Journal on July 13, I really wanted to know what makes Nichols so interested. His editorials in Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin) were known to me. I found the one which defined the issue and the writer for me. It begins:
“John Nichols — 7/31/2007 10:21 am In 1957, a McCarthy-free morning in America
Fifty years ago today, Wisconsinites awoke to the end of the McCarthy era.” If ever there was a devious ploy in American politics that colored my future, it was McCarthyism. So it was refreshing to understand how someone felt about having Tailgunner Joe as Wisconsin’s Senator.

Books about impeachment are usually not about the process and beg clarity concerning its long history. This book covers both topics in such an interesting way that many could read it just to enlighten themselves. Surviving lengthy investigations for Nixon and Clinton impeachments, I wondered how (and also why) a full scale investigation of George W. Bush’s actions could come in time to reach resolution before the next presidential election. High crimes and misdemeanors are already evident. Nichols lays out how it could happen and explains that the instigating party gains from the attempt. His most salient reason (the why) is what led me to advocate for impeachment of the current President, Vice-President, and Attorney General if necessary.

Who makes money and who cares? What is money? A symbol of wealth as described in text books? Congealed energy as I’ve heard it described in think tank circles? However it is explained, money cannot be eaten. For protection from weather, one newspaper outranks a hundred-dollar bill.
Mostly, we could agree money needs the helping hand of a number to make it relevant and a country to make it real. Countries can be relevant only as long as they have a currency. Be it cruzeiro or yen, we identify with a qualifier in front of the currency’s name (Brazilian and Japanese). Currently it takes less than .80 Euro to buy a US dollar.
We used to hear about “the almighty dollar” but not now.
All Americans do not think the same about money. Some, with piles of it, worry that if they don’t watch out, “the government” will write laws to tax it. Those most covetous even worry about what the government wants to do with it after they die.
Some of us have enough to “get by” but are afraid of falling behind. Our table talk is filled with “what ifs.”
And then there are those who scarcely have money. They live from paycheck to paycheck, hoping there’ll be one. In their world, they hope the lights stay on so they can watch beautiful cars hug the curves of American scenery and movies where there are other curves to be hugged. To break their trance, politicians come on with flashy ads to tell them how their troubles will disappear if they vote for them. They can’t buy cars. They can’t buy beauty products, and they don’t fall for politicians who “all sound the same.”

I’m thinking Southern Democrats, some when I was young and some when I am old. And now I’m in a quandary. What about those Blue Dogs?
What I’m not thinking about is George Wallace, who got tired of being a Democrat by the time JFK was president. At the risk of repeating myself, I want to say how much Taylor Branch’s trilogy on the King Years brought home changes which happened in mid-20th-Century. Much has happened since Harry Truman issued an order to integrate the military, which was the first blow to the bigotry of separate but equal patriotism.
From the time of 1864 to 1964, there was denial of the “shadow,” as Toni Morrison portrayed it. She lectured on how all American literature had references to what we call the race question. But if you want deep thoughts turn to another Nobel Prize winner, Martin Luther King and his belief in non-violence. I can’t help but remember his mentor Ghandi, which makes me drift off to the great work his grandson has done in Memphis, and now in the Boston area. As MLK was learning how to learn from those he wanted to lead, he realized that the people are the deciders. Myles Horton, a political activist who held workshops in the early days of the SCLC’s assertion that voting was king, is one of the Tennesseans who made a difference.
But now, to the Blue Dogs. Of the 18 Democrats who voted with the Republicans on the FICA “fix” 10 were from southern states. Seven of the votes were from northern states. Two Tennesseans in the list were Lincoln Davis (4th Dist) and John Tanner (5th Dist), who is considered to have started the Blue Dogs.

We’ve got ourselves a problem. To use Bruce Fein’s word, let’s don’t be “invertebrate” about it.
What’s our problem? A misbegotten war which is doing harm in this world. And the world is watching. So straighten up and stand straight. Take a deep breath. And remember that only action will be enough to show we are up to our own high standards.
If you want impeachment, say it. No weasel words about finding the right time. Whoever sits in the White House after the election can’t help but care about that issue, so be so advised when “hopefuls” ask for your support. However proceedings unfold, we must agree that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have let us down, and we want them to understand they aren’t doing the job of a president and vice-president.
It’s going to take some starch. It’s easy enough to sit looking at a monitor and letting your itchy fingers scratch out frustration. But telling a soldier’s kin how you feel may cause some flak. Not the kind of flak the poor soldier is taking. Think of him and try to be as brave as he is.
The scribes with their four-syllable words are going to be the hardest to wean from their elocution. Just say it. IMPEACH! The old bumper sticker might help them. WHEN CLINTON LIED, NO ONE DIED!
I personally advise against irrational exuberance. By that I mean, let’s don’t get sidetracked into instant philosophy. Wars may always be among us. Well, maybe. Let’s don’t make it this ill-conceived war, however.

Over the weekend, I obtained an advance reader's copy of Gen. Wesley Clark's new book, with September publication date. It is called "A Time to Lead: For Duty, Honor, and Country" As you can tell by the title, it sure seems like a campaign manifesto. The book is all about how there is a leadership void in this country. Clark recounts stories of his time serving in the military and how strong leadership countered bad circumstances. He thinks the problems in this country all come down to a lack of bold leadership, to a constant yielding to a committee mentality where so many voices in a room are shouting out that none get heard, and where decisive action gets bogged down in the need for consensus here and there. He points out that in a war zone on the frontline, if you overthink things, if you spend too much time weighing percentages and demanding other people's opinions, you risk getting overrun by the enemy. He says that what Bush, and even other past presidents have lacked, is the ability and willingness to act boldly and decisively, to actually BE a leader, who has the power of his convictions and the heart to carry them out.

This shouldn't be taken as a full review of the book because I haven't finished it yet, and this is an advance copy I'm reading that could still be changed before the final edition. With that disclaimer, I'll say that Clark makes some credible points. If we elect leaders who are legislators, should we surprised if they lead with a legislative mentality, a committee mentality, and not with a command mentality, an executive mentality?

A few days ago, Newt Gingrich insulted Latinos and everyone who has ever lived in the ghetto by disparaging Spanish as a "ghetto" language.

Now Newt apologizes - in Spanish - for offense given, but also clarifies that he would like to discontinue America's bilingual education programs and replace them with intensive emersion in English.

In the last week, Newt has ingratiated himself with anti-Latino Americans and now he scores points with an apology to Latinos for his ealier insults. At least he DID apologize, and used no four-letter words in the process.

Newt's Spanish is comprehensible and he obviously made an effort to master many words and phrases, if he did not already know them. His apology is effective. Sensitive Newt as we have never seen him before.

He can afford to be sensitive here, in the assurance that his conservative-reactionary base will have no idea what he is saying and will not hold this apology against him.

With all of his historical advantages, what explains his relatively poorer performance?

Cross-posted at the Francis L. Holland Blog.

The numbers for the fundraising of Democratic Presidential candidates in the first quarter of 2007 have now been released, and John Edwards has raised less money than both front-runners Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton raised $26 Million dollars, not counting the ten million she was able to transfer from her Senate campaign to her presidential campaign.

The New York Times reports today that Barack Obama has raised $20,000,000, and “his fund-raising prowess has helped make him the chief rival to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.” In Obama’s past Senate campaign, says the New York Times, “Even as he cultivated an image as an unconventional candidate devoted to the people, not the establishment, he systematically built a sophisticated, and in many ways quite conventional, money machine,” building “from the ground up”. NYT

The reasons for Clinton’s historical fundraising levels are well-known. She is a major national player in the Democratic Party, was first lady for eight years, has been elected to the US Senate twice, and her husband was President of the United States twice. Many people donate to her campaign because they believe in her policies and they believe she is most likely to win the nomination.

Barack Obama is able to raise $20 Million in the first three months of his first presidential bid because there is tremendous public excitement about the new vision he offers and the outstanding qualities of the man himself, a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School who became the school’s first Black editor of the Harvard Law Review and then became the only Black member of the US Senate. He has an extraordinary personal story and two best-selling books to support his campaign.

But, the question must be asked, “Why has John Edwards, who ran for President in 2004 and became the Democratic nominee for Vice President, only raised $15 Million dollars in the first quarter, which is 25% less than Barack Obama and almost 50% less than Hillary Clinton? The Fix, WaPost

The difference cannot be explained by name recognition, since Edwards was the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004, while Obama has never been on a national ticket. If Edwards still had lower name recognition than Barack Obama at this point, a negative inference would have to be drawn about Edwards’ relative ability to draw the public’s attention and generate enthusiasm about his campaign. Certainly, America knows who Edwards is.

Their presence on the Internet would not seem to explain John Edwards’ inability to raise the sums that his competitors raised either. John Edwards’ website has been up longer and contains more links to social networking sites, so he does have exposure on the Internet. Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post calls the Edwards website an “exercise in social networking that includes not only a blog, where surfers can post their thoughts, but also cyber-diaries written by Edwards's family members.” WaPost But, Slashdot.Org says Edwards’ website is “a bit of a disorganized mess . . . [and] The Edwards campaign needs to hire a professional web designer (or fire the one they have).

Indeed, ZDNET says:

Clinton’s early, Web-based campaign announcement helped catapult the Clinton campaign to “number one” presidential campaign Web site status honors in January 2007. The Clinton online effort booked a commanding Web site traffic lead over the second place Obama campaign Web site and attracted almost twice the number of visitors as the John Edwards campaign Web site, according to Nielsen/NetRatings.

Number one HillaryClinton.com drew 828,000 unique visitors in January.

In fact, John Edwards’ attempts to dominate the Internet game have led to his biggest online embarrassment. The John Edwards anti-religious blogger scandal hurt him badly, because it raised doubts about his political judgment and acumen. It may well have left Americans doubting John Edwards’ respect for religious people and/or his ability to manage a successful campaign and the country.

One might have thought that, as a candidate who is both white and male, John Edwards might have been expected to come into the race with an advantage, based on biased perceptions of who could win and whose gender or color would make them ineligible. This might have been expected particularly because there has never been a woman or Black president of the United States.

But, to the extent that there are still gender and skin-color biases within the Democratic Party, John Edwards does not seem to have benefited sufficiently from them to move him into the top ranks of the rain-makers.

The difference in fundraising ability also cannot be explained by time spent campaigning, since Edwards has been a full-time candidate since 2004, while Clinton and Obama have had to campaign while contending with their Senate responsibilities. But Clinton and Obama have campaigned while maintaining the prominence that comes with still being a responsible member of the US Senate. Having entered the US Senate in 1998 and run for the presidency and vice presidency, Edwards certainly has had more opportunity than Obama to draw national attention over the years.

John Edwards’ own message may have hurt his fundraising. He says that he is running for president to help the poor, which is mostly comprised of women, minorities and their children, but those groups have expressed little support for Edwards. Supporting John Edwards Supports the Status Quo http://francislholland.blogspot.com/2007/02/supporting-edwards-perpetuat... Meanwhile, voters who are not poor may have concluded that the Edwards campaign has little to offer them. Why Edwards’ Candidacy Won’t Resonate with America http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/12/202415/98

It seems unlikely that hilarious capturing John Edwards combing his hair for two full minuutes was the fatal blow to his candidacy, but the video may have contributed to an overall impression that Edwards lacks gravitas.

Cross-posted at the Francis L. Holland Blog.

There's something hideously funny about Newt Gingrich's latest idiotic pronouncement. I think it's his delivery. He obviously knows that what he is saying is inflammatory and absurd, and that its chief "value" is to incite the passions of people who hate Spanish-speaking people as much as they hate the people who live in the "ghetto," which includes many people who are not white and many people who do not speak Spanish.

I think I admire Newt's comic ability. Not everyone can say things he knows are ridiculous with a straight face. It's the irony between the straight face and the ridiculous assertion that causes people to laugh. And laugh we do whenever New Gingrich speaks in public, until we remember that many of our countrymen and women may be taking him seriously.

Lately, I've perceived some anti-immigrant sentiment in unexpected places. I hope this Newt Gingrich video will show everyone that, as far as Newt Gingrich is concerned, all those who have lived in the ghetto and all those who speak Spanish can be insulted as one, no matter where they were born.

I've heard some anti-immigrant sentiment recently but I'm not feeling it. I'm proud that Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, is Mexican-American, second-generation. Diversity works for the Democratic Party.

Today, I received the following e-mail from Patti Solis Doyle:

Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:35:02 -0400 (EDT)

From: "Patti Solis Doyle, Hillary for President"

To: francislholland@yahoo.com

Subject: RE: I never could have anticipated

Dear Francis,

I just got off the phone after giving Hillary an update on our online fundraising before tonight's FEC deadline. We're both blown away by the incredible response to the message she sent yesterday.

Now there are just a few hours left. At midnight tonight, we have to close the books on the first quarter. When all the campaigns' fundraising reports come out, they will set the tone of the race for months to come. As Hillary's campaign manager, I'm telling you right now, every dollar we bring in before midnight will make a difference.