Obama on Patriotism

The simple fact Senator Obama feels that he needs to give this speech is telling. But take a look at this video. Barack Obama lays out what he believes is patriotism, and why he is indeed a patriot.

Obama Moves to the Center

Senator Obama once vowed to veto any FISA bill that protected the telecom companies.

Then he voted for one.

Senator Obama supported robust public financing of elections.

Until he opted out of the system.

Senator Obama opposed NAFTA.

Now, he seems ready to just tweak it.

Obama is doing what is pragmatic, he is moving rightward toward the center of the political spectrum so as to appeal to independent voters in the general election. Having gleaned the support of the left he clearly sees a path to center and to victory in November.

Frankly, I am a little ambivalent toward his shift in positions, possibly because they are positions I am not terribly passionate about. But it does make the practical voter wonder, if I elect Obama in November, who do I get in January? Do I get the left leaning liberal who wants to withdraw from Iraq quickly? Do I get the the Obama that opposes NAFTA as presently written?

It's a fair question and its one that Obama will have to answer as the debates draw closer.

Thoughts from a Beach

As I sit here on vacation in Wildwood, New Jersey I can't help but revisit the topic of an archived post on Offshore drilling. For those who live near the shore, there is nothing quite like it. The constant noise of the waves hitting the sand is one of the most therapeutic sounds on earth. I can sit out on this balcony and enjoy nature's beauty forever. When we politicize a topic like environmentalism, rarely do we truly understand what is at stake. I don't believe there is any American who wouldn't like to pay less for a gallon of gasoline, but I believe Joni Mitchell said it best when she sang, "...don't it always seems as though, that you don't know what you got till it's gone...". Environmentalists get a bad wrap as people who care more for the planet than they do for people. I like to think they care for both by preserving the delicate balance between the two. Perhaps it's because they have faith in the human ability to think beyond destroying mother nature for all eternity just to save a few dollars on gasoline. Sure Americans would love to pay less to be able to drive farther on vacation, but as I previously stated, where exactly would you drive? Nobody wants to swim in an ocean that has been befouled by Petroleum. Nobody wants to eat seafood that has been tainted by chemicals. I would like to extend an invitation to supporters of offshore drilling to come and spend a week or two here at the beach and only after they have done so, ask, is it worth it? Just something I was thinking about here on the sand.

Latinos Lambaste McCain!

Both Republican and Democrats have recently criticized McCain for lacking the ability to energize audiences, and for appearing old when compared with Obama. McCain silenced that group of critics today when a crowd of Latinos seemed quite spirited and roused while being addressed by McCain. Unfortunately for McCain, these emotions took the form of jeers from hecklers who railed against his proposals for the Iraq War. I am somewhat torn on this outcome, because I don't think any dignitary deserves to be interrupted when he has been invited to lay out a platform. While this is not the first appearance of hecklers (Obama has had to deal with his fair share), I certainly hope that it is one of the last. I understand that people want their voices to be heard by government, but I seriously doubt that is the motivating factor in such cases. These people generally seem to be seeking their fifteen minutes of fame, for if they really cared about the issues they would behave in a more dignified and appropriate manner. I also realize these are troubling times and the economy is in shambles, however what will yelling at a candidate truly accomplish? McCain understands just as much as Obama that people are hurting, he doesn't need to be berated and quite frankly as an elder statesman and former war veteran he deserves your attention and respect. Do not go to a public event to dishonor his service in a pathetic attempt to derail his speech. I find myself disagreeing with McCain more often than not, but as a presidential candidate he deserves respect, regardless of how I feel about his policies. Not to sound like an elitist, but recent aggravated verbal assaults provide rationale for the Electoral College. While that is a long debate for another time, let me say that occasionally I am happy that we have a system in place to protect us from emotional voters, who are either misinformed or only vote on one issue. It appears that politics in this country is degenerating into boxing-style press conferences where anybody with a ticket instantly thinks he/ she is an expert in democracy and governance. When the Founding Fathers created a government based upon the voice of the people, I don't think displays like today are what they had in mind. Citizens have every right to be heard, but you have to do something before you get to debate McCain. He's up there on stage, and you're getting escorted by security out the door. There is a reason why. He knows his stuff, and you're an ignorant fool. Enjoy your spaghetti!

V List Crossover: Hail to the Chief!

Perhaps one of the most persistent and recurring roles on television and film is that of the President of the United States. While Hollywood's portrayal of the executive office may be far from the truth, it way more entertaining and revealing than any press release or declassified document. Hollywood remains light years ahead of reality, having already portrayed a female and african-american president, something we still grapple with here in the "real-world". Hollywood presidents don't just create policy on terrorism, in some cases they roll up their sleeves and kick a little ass too. Here are the top five films featuring our fearless Commander in Chief.

5. Air Force One

This film makes the list purely because it transforms the President (played by Harrison Ford) into an ass-kicking terrorist fighter. I can't think of many films where the Commander and Chief interprets his title literally by donning an MP5 aboard a hijacked jumbo-jet. While there are many moments in this film where you will yell "Bull Sh&%" at the outlandish feats that are accomplished mid-air, you will certainly get a good laugh in the process. Additionally, the casting of this film will surprise you, since William H. Macy, Gary Oldman, and Glenn Close provide outstanding supporting roles in this Wolfgang Petersen cheezefest. This is yet another cinematic steal you can find in the five dollar Wal-Mart bin that isn't as heady or as preachy as the next few films.

4. Dr. Strangelove

While Kubrick uses comedy to liven up the Cold War, he somehow reminds us of the delicate balance between preservation of humanity and total annihilation. I have always thought Peter Sellers was one of the most under-celebrated actors of the last generation, having been so much more than Chief Inspector Jacques Clouseau in the Pink Panther films. Any student of film history simply must go out and buy this film in order to appreciate its artistic splendor, and for satirically capturing the spirits and sentiments at the height of the nuclear age.

3. Primary Colors

IMDB.com joking quips that this movie should be called "Hillary and Bill: The Movie". While I have never read the novel that this film was based upon, it encapsulated many of Clinton's shortcomings that have become the basis of so many Oval Office jokes in the past eight years. This film was also beautifully cast and adds a new dimension to the myriad of roles played by fictional presidents, that being the inspirational and morally bankrupt slime-ball.

2. The American President

After watching this film I am convinced of many things, one of which is that Michael Douglas should run for President of the United States. He has wonderful hair, even more so than John Edwards. Secondly, Michael J. Fox is a hell of a press secretary, it's shameful that George W. Bush didn't make use of his talents to spin his public relations disasters. The American President is the movie that has something for everybody. It's intelligent enough to not be considered quirky, yet endearing enough to qualify as a romantic comedy. While The American President can never be classified as a "chick flick" it would rank high on the "list of guy movies that women will watch" for it's love story between Douglas and Annette Bening. The American President could seriously make a run at number one if not for the strength of our final film.

1. JFK

While many of the facts of this film are distorted and/or created purely for Oliver Stone to make his epic film, it does not diminish the movie's obvious brilliance. I once asked a colleague what percentage of the facts did he believe were correctly represented in Stone's film. He guesstimated about 40 percent of the events of the film have historical backing and are "irrefutable". If this percentage holds true, then Stone has made a compelling argument for conspiracy theory that will be debated until the National Archives are completely declassified in the coming years. I have always believed that JFK was more like a religious experience than a movie. I was very young when I watched this film for the first time, yet it had a profound impact on my understanding of the workings of government and its relationship with its citizenry. I'm not saying I took this film at face value, but it certainly impressed upon me the need to constantly search for the truth, something that our Founding Fathers stressed approximately two centuries ago. That's what I call a powerful film.

There's more lists just like this one over at The "V" List.

Mad Men: Best Moments Season One

Here's a montage of clips from Season One. 

Mad Men: Betty

Yesterday we enjoyed the profile of Mad Men's main character, Don Draper. Today AMC brings us a profile of his wife, a fascinating character in her own right...

Subprime sprawl

MSNBC gives us this grim look at the sprawl of the subprime mess. What the people in the story really describe is the growing, relentless squeeze on middle class Americans. Give it a read. 

David Brooks: George Bush, the Surge, and surprising results

David Brooks came out yesterday in something like defense of George W. Bush and the surge in Iraq. 

Brooks points out that the same bullheaded traits that caused the failures of the first 5 years of the Iraq War, were the same traits that made Bush so sure "the surge" was going to work. Essentially, that the lousy traits Bush portrays in leadership, actually led him to the right decision on the surge in the face of vociferous opposition. From his column...

Bush is a stubborn man. Well, without that stubbornness, that unwillingness to accept defeat on his watch, he never would have bucked the opposition to the surge.

Bush is an outrageously self-confident man. Well, without that self-confidence he never would have overruled his generals.....

Bush is also a secretive man who listens too much to Dick Cheney. Well, the uncomfortable fact is that Cheney played an essential role in promoting the surge. Many of the people who are dubbed bad guys actually got this one right.

He makes a good point, one more about the pros and cons of any leadership style. I think in the case of the surge though, the jury is still largely out. What Brooks and other conservative commentators miss is why we were all so opposed to "the surge" and why even after it's measurable gains most Americans are still opposed to it, and George W. Bush in overwhelming numbers. 

People opposed "the surge" because it was seen as escalation. Not only in a fight we were losing, that was costing American lives, but in a cause we didn't understand. The essential problem with the war in Iraq has been and always will be in the eyes of many Americans, that we never should have been there in the first place. Many Americans, myself very much included, don't understand what "victory" really is over there. I recognize that "the surge" has created security, and that the country might even be rebuilding itself on some level. But when/if we leave aren't we just going to be left with another Lebanon? Another supposed beacon for Democracy in the middle east, that we will always worry will become a subverted strong hold for the Iran/Syria axis? 

No one ever understood the long term goal of going to Iraq because it's always been sold in short-term gains. We're going to get rid of WMD, then depose Saddam, then liberate the Iraqi people, then we were defeating insurgency, helping the government, building an army. All to what end? 

In the vacuum of a clear set of long term goals, the American people, with the help of satirists, authors, and cable TV, have ventured their own creative goals. Perhaps the Bush wants permanent bases, perhaps we want our own personal oil supply, perhaps we're there to support the military industrial complex. Pick your straw man and run with him because this administration doesn't explain it's actions, we just all deal with them. 

So maybe "the surge" is working...but I'd like to know what it's working towards.  

Mad Men: Don Draper

Mad Men observes and satirizes the changes our culture underwent at the dawn of the 60's through the eyes of the Men that built the era. Outside of the larger cultural critique, Mad Men also builds a series of incredibly interesting (if not incredibly lovable) characters. Here's a profile of our lead, Don Draper. 

Carlin on Death

George Carlin was the beginning of counter-culture humor in the US. SNL (which he was the first host of), Kids in the Hall, The Simpsons, South Park, and Family Guy all owe him a debt of gratitude. As does our culture, his comedy made us uncomfortable, and in a society that is often far too comfortable with its norms, he made us question them. Unto his last he was questioning and criticizing, upon his death, I wanted to play a clip of what he had to say on the subject.

Would like some gas with that Lap Dance?

You know gas prices are high when a brothel is giving it away to get you come in the door. A BROTHEL. 

Come for the free gas, stay for lap dance!

Mad Men: The Best Show on TV

Ok, definitely a divergence from our usual policy talk, but none the less this summer marks the blessed return of my favorite TV, AMC's Mad Men. As such I will be posting a series of clips provided by AMC, to familiarize you with the show and hopefully get all of you as interested in it as I am. Take a look at the following promo from AMC. 

Promises, Promises, Promises, Promises.....Pro...You Get it

It will come as a shock to no one reading this blog that politicians, especially Presidential candidates make lots of promises. John McCain has taken the art of promise-making to a new level. On the one hand, John McCain needs to maintain his appeal with his base so he promises to lift the ban on off shore drilling. An act that would do nothing to alleviate short term oil prices and would do everything to maintain the choke-hold oil has on our economy. 

That promise was met by a new one as reported by the Newshour, a $300 million dollar prize for the best car battery.  A promise made to appeal to the independents he needs to win the general election. 

John McCain has made some more promises, like to cut the corporate tax rate and solve the budget gap with spending cuts. Those spending cuts would have to total a 30% cut in non-discretionary spending and virtually all discretionary spending to cover the shortfall we have today, to say nothing of the shortfall that would occur if taxes were cut further. 

Then there's the promise that we would be out of Iraq by 2013, that's a new goal post for success there, how much would you like to bet that if McCain were president sometime around 2011, we'd realize we need to be there until 2018? 

McCain has taken his shots at Obama for breaking his promise on campaign financing, as he should. But where is the media analyzing the promises McCain is making that he has no reasonable means of keeping? 

Carlin Remembered By NBC

V-List Crossover: Star Wars Sexual Education

With all this talk of pregnancy pacts in Massachusetts I suggest public schools institute the viewing of Star Wars as part of our Sex-Ed curriculum. You wouldn't believe all the things that George Lucas was pawning on unsuspecting moviegoers. For amazing lists on popular culture head over to:

The "V" List

Honorable Mention Goes to:

1o. "She may not look like much, but she's got it where it counts, kid."
9. "Look at the size of that thing!"
8. "Put that thing away before you get us all killed!"
7. "Get in there you big furry oaf, I don't care *what* you smell!"
6. "And I thought they smelled bad...on the *outside*!"
5. "Size matters not. Judge me by my size, do you?"
4. "I thought that hairy beast would be the end of me!"
3. "Hey, point that thing somewhere else!"
2. "Not bad for a little furball."
1. "I want you to take her. I mean it, take her!"



What's your favorite Star Wars innuendo?
Put it in a comment!

Preacher Problems

One of the reasons preachers should stay out of politics is because they make so much trouble for politicians. Take a look at these clips from Senators McCain and Obama. Watch as the Senators try to squirm away from relationships with crazy religious leaders, Jerry Falwell for Senator McCain and Jeremiah Wright for Senator Obama. With friends like these....

The Latest Blow to the Economy

I like blaming things on the Bush Administration as much as the next blogger, but the floods in the Midwest will take a toll on the domestic economy as many farmers in the midwest see their crop go under water. 

George Carlin, Dead at 71

My post last night was a bit of irreverent humor. But, that was nothing compared to the work of George Carlin, who died last night of heart failure. He was a favorite comedian of mine, his irreverent work didn't always make me agree with him, but it always made me laugh and think. 

Michelle Obama Whitey Video

It took me forever to find it, but Michelle Obama drops the "Whitey Bomb" below!

Net Neutrality

This is a topic I've been meaning to post on for a long time. I've been away for most of the weekend in my little spare time this evening I thought I'd hit on it. 

The topic is Net Neutrality. The topic is a difficult one to summarize, but I'll attempt to. Essentially, the way the Internet exists now, the pipes that allow ISP's to connect and broadcast on the Internet are content blind. That is to say no matter who owns the website and no matter how much bandwith their content might use. So whether you host your own website of cat videos or you're CNN you get the same access to bandwith as everyone else. 

Unless the telecom companies get their way. They have been fighting to make the web less neutral. The argument goes like this. In every other form of media, you pay for how much of it you use. If I make a telephone call to my friend around the block I use less network resources than if I call my friend in Kenya, therefore, the call to the friend around the block will cost less. The Internet should be no different. If I am posting high bandwith items like video, then I should pay more for that bandwith than if I am posting a text-only blog. So essentially the telecoms want to charge a premium for bandwith, pricing it out of range for many independent content providers and creating a corporate hierarchy on the web, like the one that exists on television. 

As a blogger, and someone that believes in the promise of the internet to connect people through freedom of expression I stand heavily in favor of net neutrality. I understand the telecom companies point, and if they can prove financial hardship in spite of their profits, than I would even be willing to consider public subsidy of telecom infrastructure to ensure a long-lasting, truly free internet. Otherwise we will stifle creativity, competition and the big ideas that are likely to come. 

Surfing youtube, I found Senator Obama's position on net neutrality (he's for it). Senator McCain also seems to be for it, though my evidence for that is based in a rather long winded explanation from Carly Fiorina. 

Don't Slap The Starfish!

A new blog launches today, and I think you should take a look. The
author is a bit younger than the average policy thought reader, but
she's smart, funny and loves to share her thoughts on what's going on
in the world.

Head over to don't slap the star fish and show some love.

Brooks: Two Obamas

Brooks goes to town on Barack Obama today, taking the bait on the campaign fiance reform contraversy. I am not an Obama apologist on this one, a pledge has been broken. But I can't help but feel that if a Republican candidate pulled out of public financing under the guise of "hard working americans' tax dollars shouldn't fund my campaign" no one would bat an eye, pledge or no pledge. 

The bottom line, when a Republican does anything to win (i.e. Karl Rove and Co. promising evangelicals everything they wanted to hear in 2000, or John McCain cow-towing to Jerry Falwell) it's portrayed as intelligent tactical maneuvering. When a Democrat sacrifices principal to win, its seen only as political calculation. 

Still its important to see the difference in stance:

 and

Funding, We Don't Need No Stinking Funding!

Senator Obama made a not-so-surprise decision yesterday and opted out of public financing yesterday. The first candidate to not take tax-payer dollars to fund his General Election campaign in history, Obama's choice stemmed from the simple fact that he is raising more money a month than the public system would have given him to play with from the end of August till November. 

There is a political risk here in that he gave the clear impression that he would opt into the public financing system if his opponent did, last year. I believe that this is ultimately a question of process and Obama will win the spin war on two fronts, one he already established, that the system was essentially broken and easily gamed anyway. The other, that the vast majority of his funding is made voluntarily by his supports in small amounts. John McCain's campaign would be funded by tax payer money. 

Overall this is a win for Obama, and I think deep down, most Americans won't see much of a problem with a candidate NOT leaving potentially $500 million on the table. 

Of course Politico.com is all over this. Here's their multimedia tour. And Ben Smith pens this view, Obama's decision is right in line with the rest of his campaign.

One last thought, this will annoy editorialists and political insiders but it will be a non-story in 2 days. When something is running hard in Politico but nowhere else, you know its an insider story. 

We Don't Wanna Grow Up! We're Toys R' Us Kids!!

There are lots of differences between Baby Boomers and Generation X or is it Y or Next, I can never remember what we’re called. It doesn’t really matter does it? What I have become more and more intrigued by is my generation’s growing, sprawling Peter Pan complex. In fact, if so many people have it to begin with, is it even a complex?

Baby Boomers have been obsessed with defying the natural process of aging for a long time now. This “Just for Men” culture has existed largely in the cosmetic industry and in the fodder that the mid-life crisis often creates. But I wonder if being Peter Pan is no longer reserved to middle aged men buying the sports car of their youth. Is it possible that we, the young never want to grow old. Is our’s a generation of lost boys and girls?

When I think to our grandparents, I think of kids that rushed to be adults. They married young, volunteered for one of the bloodiest conflicts in history, sacrificed their personal interests to grow the most powerful nation on the planet. When I think of our parents I think of a generation that also rushed to grow up, they were the protest generation, the generation of civil and gender rights. The generation that watched their friends, brothers and husbands fight and die in a war they didn’t understand. It was only after the harsh times of revolution and after they had bore their own children that they began to recede to wanting to reclaim their youth in the form of Mediterranean vacations and skin peels.

I look now to our generation and see a very different curve. Promised that we were to be the most powerful generation, a generation that could seize the full power of our educational assets and economic prowess, unfettered by global conflicts like WWII, Vietnam or the Cold War, we were free to do and become anything and indeed create a bigger and better world. Our college educations paid for, our parents relatively comfortable, we had no national interest to be concerned, no concerns at all really, but our own.

Then September 11th happened and a global conflict of mass proportions that had laid dormant for decades awoke to grasp a nation and a generation. Echoes of the calls to service heard during WWII, and Vietnam were heard. As a generation we were certain that we were going to be called to sacrifice as our parents and grandparents did. We were certain we would grow up. But something different happened. We weren’t called to arms. We weren’t called to sacrifice. We were called to the mall. We were called to make sure that we continue to keep the economy rolling along despite the huge problems our nation now faces. Our government told us that we faced huge crises ahead and they alone would solve them for us. Our government would go on to wage two wars, while cutting taxes. As a generation we weren’t asked to do any heavy lifting, just live our lives. Buy an iPod, if you don’t, the terrorists win.

But in the last decade something more is going on, something beyond political rhetoric. In the 1980’s Toys R Us the toy superstore chain came out with a national ad campaign accompanied by a now famous song. The primary lyric, “I don’t wanna grow up, I’m a Toys R Us kid.” Two decades later, maybe we didn’t grow up. Look at our culture. We are now the most coveted of demographics. The 18-30 year olds. Hollywood like most industries wants to create film titles that we will shell out money for. So have they turned their writers loose on creating a new set of provocative stories or a new set of action heroes built for our time to appeal to our new sense of heroism? Do we get our own versions of Captain America or Rocky or Star Wars?

No, we get to relive the characters of our childhood over and over again. A new working class hero? No, we get Rocky Six. A new sweeping action adventure in a far away time and space,? No, we get the Star Wars prequels. Since 2006 we have seen Superman, Batman, Iron Man, Spiderman (three of em), X-Men (ditto), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Indiana Jones, Live Free or Die Hard, Fantastic Four (twice), The Incredible Hulk (Twice), and who can forget Transformers (rumor is two more are on the way). These mega-titles are the driving force of the film economy.

So what? You may say. Well there’s more to it than nostalgia in film. While we are reliving our childhood fantasies at the movies, we are watching people attempt to live out their fantasies on TV. Becoming the next top model, becoming the next American idol, landing a rich bachelor, surviving a desert island, all done by real people. Our television landscape as become a rich tapestry of people living out their childhood fantasies. We all watch programs that elevate the mediocre among us to superhero status, at least for a little while, and we engage in the fantasy.

It’s not that I see total gloom on the horizon for the nation. Many people of my generation are starved to do something to change the path we are on, to wrestle control of our politics and culture away from huge, thumping corporate interests and engage the nation in a move toward progress.

It’s just that I see a generation already swimming in personal debt from credit cards and car payments and student loans, a generation for whom home ownership will be a difficult thing to achieve, who’s wages are growing stagnant and ever receding when adjusted to inflation. I see a generation that hasn’t been engaged enough to get outraged over the fact that our nation is plunging into debt, and we will need to figure out how to pay it off. But I wonder if like September 11th our gut will tell us we need to change our ways, but our culture and our president won’t be there to tell us to just keep spending money and it will all go away.

We may be looking for a change we can believe in, but are we ready to change? Are we ready to grow up?

Baracknophobia

John Stewart addresses the irrational fear that behind the mild-mannered facade, Barack Obama is intent on enslaving the white race.

Oil? Oil? Bit%# you cookin'!?

My pendulum is going to swing to the left from my previous position on Gitmo and the Supreme Court's controversial decision. On Wednesday, George W. Bush called for a lift on the Congressional ban to allow for offshore drilling, which will coincide with the suspension of a similar executive order. This is clearly a knee-jerk reaction to rising gasoline and oil prices, and meant to provide a solid soundbite for November. GOP zombie, John McCain wasted no time in associating himself with Bush's call for action (despite his multiple attempts to say that he is not a third term for Bush). McCain said, "It is much safer now, and if the oil rigs could survive Hurricane Katrina with little spillage then it must be save... ." I won't even get into the fact that oil companies already have a considerable amount of ocean real-estate that remains untapped. This is not about oil prices folks! Price relief at the pump will not be felt until at least three to five years from now if offshore drilling began immediately. I heard the funniest line today while watching CNN that I want to repeat because I think it bears repeating. "In the last eight years, the GOP has become the Gas, Oil, and Petroleum Party..." This is one more attempt to empower the oil companies and their lobbyists while crapping all over the environment. Think back to the oil leak in California in the late 1960's for evidence of what one mistake means for American shorelines and recreation. Sure people hate paying four dollars per gallon to drive to the beach, but what's if the beach is polluted to high hell? I'm far from what one would consider a "tree-hugger" , but I can say that the Bush/McCain solution is the same old solutions to complex problems. Where is the John McCain that opposed offshore drilling only a few years ago? Where has McCain's call for alternative energy and environmental sustainability gone? Funny how last election the Republicans used the word flip-flopper in nearly every sentence to describe Kerry, however John McCain is the "thoughtful candidate that is not afraid to change his mind." Wasn't McCain posturing himself as the candidate that didn't pander to lobbyists and special interest groups? Yet one more reason why the end of the Bush/McCain era can not come fast enough. 

Blue Balled: A Short Film

From the Democratic support group (no, not like therapy) Truth Through Action, here's their first short film. It is very clever, if not predictable. Enjoy!

BFF 4ever

Al Gore wholeheartedly supports Obama. Shocking, isn't it? Who could have possibly predicted that once Hilary Clinton conceded, that Gore would back the Democratic nominee? Still, one can't blame Gore for not getting in the middle of the primary spat. He knew that no matter which received the nomination, he would play a big part in (hopefully)their election, and they in turn would give him more power to do what he's passionate about--helping the environment.

Turns out, Al Gore is a pretty smart guy. But Obama is not too dull either. The unveiling of the alliance in Michigan at this point is pretty darn smart (as the NY Times pointed out). And with all these pictures of these two bright men standing together, we may be tempted to start thinking of a joint ticket, a real dream team when compared to the two currently in office. But before we all start getting giddy about a joint ticket, I ask what would Al Gore gain by being VP? Seems to me he would be much better off in a lower profile, high level position where he can drive the environmental agenda. And any candidate would be an idiot not to give it to him.

Hyrdogen Honda

Is this the deathnail of our fossil fuel driven economy? Let's hope so. Check out this article on Honda's new zero emmisions vehicle. Now the only problem will be changing our infrastructure to catch up with the technology.

Quick! Look over there...

Frank Rich of the NY Times talks about the narrative that's building in the media and how it is a tactic to distract us from looking too closely at the other side of the isle. I vote: Good read.

Evangelicals for Obama?

Take a look at this piece posted by Ben Smith at Politico. Stephen Mansfield supporter of George W. Bush and Tom Delay has penned a pro-Obama biography. Here's a quote...

"Young Evangelicals are saying, 'Look, I'm pro-life but I'm looking at a guy who's first of all black-and they love that; two, who's a Christian; and three who believes faith should bear on public policy," Mansfield, who described himself as a conservative Republican, said in a telephone interview (with Politico). "They disagree with him on abortion, but they agree with him on poverty, on the war." 

I find it amazing that when you get two candidates that aren't willing to pander directly to the religious right, we begin to see open mindedness of people. Not seeing a candidate that is willing to tell them exactly what they want to hear, Evangelicals are thinking critically about a wide range of issues before they make their choice. I love what happens when Karl Rove disappears. 

Wind Energy and Zero Emissions

It's one thing when environmentalists say it. It's one thing when lobbyists say it. But when our own Department of Energy issues a report stating that Wind Power could provide 20 percent of our energy needs by 2030 using no new technology, simply deploying it widely, that's news. 

I came across a great review of the article at the New Republic. Take a read of the summary...

Also CBS News has a nice intro piece on Honda's Zero Emission Vehicle about to arrive in Southern California. 

Town Meeting Anyone?

By now everyone has heard about John McCain's offer to have ten townhall-style meetings with Barack Obama between now and the scheduled debates of the fall. The debates wouldn't be carrie4d on any national media outlet, rather they would stream on the internet. The idea is certainly intriguing. The Obama campaign recently offered two townhalls in addition to the 3 debates. As the campaigns continue to wrangle over how many and the logistics of time, place and format, I have to wonder in the era of the moderated debate is over.

Its not for lack of desire to have moderated debates, and I am Jim Lehrer's (usual debate moderator) biggest fan. But II have to wonder in the day and age of bite-size media consumption and out-of-time viewing, if Americans really want to sit down and watch a moderated, mediated event. Rather they want the candidates to speak their minds directly to questions asked by audience members.

Of course as I read that last sentence I realize that the format proposed by McCain and being bandied by the Obama campaign does not come from a ground swell of support from the public. This format is believed to be advantageous to the campaigns. John McCain clearly believes he works better in this format, hence his proposal. I don't blame him, but I wonder why neither candidate wanted more network-sponsored debates? Was it because of the incessant questions about lapel pins, pledges of allegiance, age?

Well I for one hope they meet 4 or 5 times prior to the old-style debates and get speaking about the issues Americans care about. Lincoln-Douglas style.

Remembering Russert

Gitmo: The Supreme Court Rules

Marc Valentine, my fellow policy-thinker as made his feelings known on the Guantanamo Bay habeas corpus ruling laid down by the Supreme Court this week. His opinion lines up with many Americans who are wondering why the supreme court decided to extend the rights of the US Constitution to enemy combatants at the US installation in Cuba.

I am going to take the opposing view on this one because the Supreme court was absolutely correct in it's view concerning the facility and the extension of habeas corpus. To understand the court's ruling we must understand essentially two points. The first concerns the nature of the US use of Guantanamo bay. The Supreme court ruled that because of our total control of the base that it is essentially US territory of purposes of the law. Therefore, the rules of our constitution are in play. Secondly, the status of the prisoners in question. The Bush administration explicitly sought to deny these men POW status under the Geneva Convention which would have given them special status in the eyes of constitutional law. They were instead held as enemy combatants. The court previously ruled these combatants needed to be given rights to legal processes if they weren't to be held under Article Four of the Geneva conventions. The Administration sought to give them legal protections in the form of military tribunals which the Supreme Court struck down as inadequate. The Republican congress of the time wrote a law that protected the tribunals and gave the administration the legal grounds to stand on to try these detainees as they saw fit. One of the rights not granted to them was the right of habeas corpus.

I completely agree that Gitmo must be counted as under our control and therefore falling within Constitutional boundaries. Why? Because otherwise the precedent we set is that the US can set whatever rules for capture and detention is pleases as long as it done outside the United States. US entities could capture and hold detainees without cause or due process for years all around the world without affording them any kind of rights. Guantanamo Bay was the operated in this way. The Supreme Court's ruling in that regard was utterly correct. If we establish a base or an active installation of any kind with any level of permanence somewhere in the world it is our responsibility to operate it under the conventions we would expect.

Secondarily, even in this unending war on terror that we have engaged in, rule of law holds some weight. The people we detain overseas must be given a legal status that holds water both here in the US and abroad or else all future actions we take in this War on Terror will be seen as unjust. The Supreme Court's ruling on aspect was also correct.

Thusly I support the decision. But I encourage debate on this one as I'm sure some of you out there don't agree with me. Head to the comments section and let us know your thoughts or email us at Policythought@gmail.com

A great debate on this subject was held last week on the Newshour.

Fist Jab

Tim Russert dead at 58

We certainly won't be the first or only voice on this. But Tim Russert
of NBC's Meet the Press has died.

Television's longest running program has lost its moderator and NBC
its Washington Bureau chief. His show was a must watch for us at
Policythought. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family.

"Yes, You Can Buy A Kia"

This is awful. But they should get this guy for SNL...he's got Fred Armisen beat big time.

WTF Mate!

Can somebody please explain to me how individuals that are not citizens of the United States deserve the privilege of our civilian court system? While I have been quick to denounce torture on this site, I would not go as far left as to say that these people should be protected by our Constitution. President Bush may have become the pariah for Gitmo, but newsflash folks, he didn't create it. The Supreme Court's decision to offer detainees rights in the U.S. Constitution could be their worst decision since ruling that private industry can take private land for commercial use. I'm sure that human rights advocates will celebrate this landmark decision, but to paraphrase Jack Nicholson from A Few Good Men, "all they did was weaken a country today...that's all you did. You put people's lives in danger. Sweet dreams son." You can't hand people that want to destroy your civilization the keys to the castle. That's the bottom line. Enemies of this nation should not enjoy the same Constitutional rights of legal, taxpaying, and loyal citizens of this great country. I am outraged that an institution as vital as the Supreme Court would make such a reckless decision that threatens our national security. I always thought the Supreme Court's role was to interpret the Constitution, not rewrite it. Shameful.

Fighting Smear Tactics

In the race for the White House, there are so many real policy differences between John McCain and Barack Obama, we don't need smear campaigns. Senator Obama has faced smears that he's a Muslim (because ALL Muslims are evil *cough*cough*) that his wife calls white people "whitey" and that he hates white America. 

The Obama Campaign has launched a website, they hope will combat these smears quickly. Citing the swift boat attacks on John Kerry. I would hope for the sake of fair debate John McCain would make a statement denouncing such nonsense. 

Policy Difference: Obama and McCain on Iraq

A lot of hay has been made over McCain's comments on the Today Show yesterday (who knew the Today Show could make news). His sound bite-let came off more calous than I'm sure he intended but it leads to an important policy difference. McCain has consistently laid out a template wherein the US maintains a long term presence similar to what we have in Japan and all around the world. 

Here's the Today Show Clip one more time. 

Again, set the delivery aside. McCain believes a long term draw down is possible. But to a sustainable troop level.

Senator Obama on the other hand seems to want to get out of Iraq expeditiously. 

Above, Obama gets to lay out his Iraq Policy in some length (from a debate in February). He seems to suggest a draw down and a date certain, but then mentions all of these forces we will need. Embassy protection, counter-terrorism, humanitarian protection. What number are we drawing down to and when? His argument is about strategy on the world stage. It's cerebral and a breath of fresh air after the Bush administration. McCain's is about nuts and bolts military action. The question for voters on this issue is do they want erudite or do they want meat and potatoes? 

Feminism's wake up call

Thought the days of fighting for women's equality were long gone? Think again. The NY Times ran an article today detailing the increased number of hymen restoration operations in Europe preserving women's, particularly Muslim women's, virginity.

I have no problem with a religion's reverence of virginity until marriage. Christianity shares this with Islam. But I do object to it being used as weapon to degrade and oppress women. And unfortunately, this is what is behind the surge in operations. Muslim women need to "prove" their virginity-often going to the gynecologist to receive certificates that their hymens are still intact. Nevermind that the hymen is not a good indicator of virginity as they can be damaged in accidents, do not necessarily tear upon having intercourse, and there are women who are born without them.

And if abstinence until marriage is so virtuous, then it should be so among males and females. Yet, there are no tests and certificates required for men. There are no invasive check-ups, or operations to save them shame and exile. A man who makes the "mistake" of engaging in intercourse before marriage suffers no public humilation or shame. A woman does. That is where the wrong lies.

Smart Car Has Gas Singing The Blues

Smart: The Gas Can Blues
by hourigan

The Real (Left?) News

The Real News Network launched late last year as a independent news organization that pledges to use no corporate, government, or advertising money to provide we the public with unfettered news coverage. In principal this sounds wonderful, in practice I have my doubts. 

The news outlet seems to veer leftward in the issues and nature of its coverage. Look at the screenshot provided above some headlines...

-Greening the Evangelicals

-Hunger in the Wake of Climate Change

-Has Obama Moved to the Right?

-Cheney Blocked Talks with Iran

I am not questioning the value or temerity of any of these stories, is the the general leftward tilt the main page takes that raises my antenna. I recognize, that policythought leans a bit to the left as an outlet for news and opinion as well, but we try to call it like we see it. Real News Network has a lot of potential to become an independent voice out there with high quality video news. But if it becomes viewed as nothing more than a mouthpiece for the left, it will die a quick death. 

Check out this promotional video posted below. 

Policy over Politics

TIME magazine's take on Obama's economic policy plans, identifying strengths and holes:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1812964,00.html

Ruffling Feathers

Take a look at the link below on how Obama's pledge to refuse PAC money has raised the heckles of party operatives.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10962.html

What would he say about Obama's nomination?

Gitmo=Showtime in Cuba

On The Media from WNYC takes on Gitmo, and explains some of the stagecraft involved in presenting (or not presenting) the facts. 

My take on Gitmo (since you asked), quickly closing it would be impossible. However, for the sake of our American society, one held up on laws and guiding principals, I believe it is necessary to open up the processes of Guantanamo Bay to the media and let the American Public decide if they think our fight on terror is a being conducted justly. 

Access. That's all we need. 

American News Project: Evangelicals going Green

 Take a look at the video above. The Christian Evangelical community seems to be waking from the zombie-like march they had undertaken falling in line behind the GOP of the Reagan-Bush years. This piece highlights the some of the new debates surrounding climate change, stewardship, and the struggle for the various religious communities in the country to find their political voice. 

Let The General Election Begin

I just wanted to post a quick thought I've been ruminating over for the past few days. In the Democratic Primary, demography was king for voters. Faced with little policy difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton voters fell into very distinct blocs. 

Now in the general election, there are many real policy difference between Senators Obama and McCain. I wonder now for many independent voters, will these issues permeate the campaign enough to crack the demographic barriers?

That is the key question of the general election. 

Hallmark gives us their take

Its not new for hallmark to take on political figures in their cards. It is new to see so many cards so close to the front door. Typical election year? Or is there some added interest?

Real News Network: Racism in West Virginia

The Real News Network gives us this priceless take on the West Virginia primary. I realize its about 3 weeks old now. But give it a look. It's a great example of how core Democrats refused to vote for Obama because of his race. Obama needs independents to win the general...how many more think this way?

A protest of Privitization

Think the government can handle nothing? So do these guys. (tongue
planted firmly in cheek-I hope)

Quick Hit: Enough Already!

Unless Barry Bonds is seeking a job as Vice-President, I don't want to hear about him anymore. Bonds headlines are increasingly frustrating when there are serious issues like the recession and rising oil prices in the news today. I have long railed against Senators and Representatives filling their precious time by prosecuting athletes that use performing enhancement drugs. Amid substantial headlines, I had to be bothered with Barry Bonds' plea of not guilty to 15 charges that he lied to federal jury in 2003. If you really want to see my blood boil, start talking about Arlen Spectre's investigation into allegations that the Patriots illegally taped their opponents. When sports climbs higher than poverty, education, and energy independence on our leader's agenda's, we may have a problem. I recommend our news media leave Bonds to ESPN and concentrate on something more important, like, you know, the economy. I want CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC to stop acting like TMZ and start acting like intelligent journalists.

Why Obama Won, the top five

Head over to the "v" list and check out my top five reasons for why Senator Obama won the Democratic Primary. 

Ben Smith on the Strategy

Ben Smith at Politico posts this piece on his blog, about the strategy for Obama as laid out by his Campaign Manager. 

Am I the only one observing this and thinking that it's still all about demography? Clinton was outspent in big state after big state and Obama still lost them why? the Demographics are still king. What Obama needs to do is find a demographic group he can win over....see his outreach to Jews, Latinos and Women. 

The Courtship Process

The New York Times offers an interesting look back on the process of courting superdelegates in the primary. Check it out.

Figuring out the future

Take a look at this photo from Time Magazine, swiped from Ben Smith's blog on Politico. Backstage at AIPAC after Obama secured the nomination. 

Brooks wants to know...What are you (Senators Obama and McCain) so happy about?

David Brooks took aim yesterday at the flaws these two titanic candidates have. And why neither of them have a clear path to Oval Office. It's refreshing to get away from the campaign rhetoric and look at the reality these men are facing. 

What Lies Beneath...

For those individuals who believe that Hillary's posturing on Tuesday night was her attempt to pressure Obama to accept her as Vice President, think again. Hillary Clinton's inability to surrender reflects but one thing, Hillary's love affair with herself. It makes no sense whatsoever for her to posture any further, a move which will only enrage Obama supporters and drive a wedge further between the two candidates. Some pundits have pointed out that Kennedy and Johnson had no love for one another, yet they co-existed. Clearly these individuals are downplaying the rhetoric used throughout this campaign and assuming that Hillary cares about her place in the party. We can all talk about "how resilient Hillary is" or "how much she has accomplished", but if you want to see the true nature of Hillary's campaign look no further than Harold Ickes's comments on Saturday afternoon. It's safe for Harold Ickes to smear the Democrats because his comments cannot be attributed directly to her. Make no mistakes that Hillary holds this electoral process and her own party in contempt for allowing Obama to steal this nomination that she was entitled to. It would not surprise me to see Clinton mount an independent campaign, free of the Democrats, much like Joe Lieberman who lost in the primary process during his run for re-election. Many have wisely pointed out that Hillary is deeply concerned most with her and Bill's place in history. Don't be so short sighted to think that she will settle for the number two spot. After all, this is her turn, this is her destiny, this is her moment. Losing in the primary will not jive with her ego and therefore I predict this is far from over. Hillary won't let some small detail like delegate math get in her way. And you thought the Ron Paul revolution was bad, you haven't seen anything yet.

Obama <3 Policythought?

Sometimes we get things right over here. Back in April I called Obama The Rorschach Candidate. Fast forward to today's NY Times, and the man says it himself....

“I am like a Rorschach test,” he said in an interview with The New York Times. “Even if people find me disappointing ultimately, they might gain something.”

Where is the substance?

It just looked and sounded so wonderful: Obama at the rostrum delivering another powerful speech, 20,000 in the stands, 15,000 outside, the red, white, and blue, screaming women, happy babies, chants of change, talk of unity...yes, I too was, for a brief moment, was wooed by his charisma and overtaken by his vision. Then I thought to myself, ...must...think...of...Jeremiah Wright. It always works, I snapped out of it just in time. 

Back to reality I settled at a time when millions of viewers were presumably still sucked into the rhetorical quicksand that has become the Obama campaign. I escaped in time to flip to Fox News and hear from my less than favorite person, Karl Rove, make some valid points that I and many others have been thinking about Obama all along: as the expression goes, he talks the talk but can't walk the walk. 

Examples: Obama said that he is going to hire a new army of teachers and give them better pay, and that we will make oil companies "invest their record profits in a clean energy future." Since when does the federal government hire teachers? Since when does the federal government decide how companies invest their profits?

Obama goes on to say last night would be seen as the moment "we began to provide care for sick and give good jobs to the jobless," and so on. I guess he is he expecting us to believe that before "this moment" no jobs were given to the jobless and no care was given to sick people.

Yes these ideas sound good, but half of them can't be done by the federal government and the other half are essentially moot. Where is the real substance? I find Barack Obama to be equivalent to a good song with terrible lyrics. It's nice to listen to, only if you don't actually listen. 

A whole new blogger

Something we've been missing here at policythought is diversity of opinion. Hence forth I introduce our own George Will. Nicholas Troiano joins the policythought team with a rightward slant we desperately need to balance our debates. Welcome him, rib him, and get involved.

McCain wants to hit the road

Jmart over at politico reports that McCain is going to challenge Obama to a series of debates ahead of the officially sanctioned ones. Interesting tack, does he think he can make Obama as uncomfortable in a debate as Hillary Clinton did?

Video Lives Forever

Whatever capacity she is allowed to have in the Obama campaign, Hillary Clinton will doggedly fight for him through till the fall. Why? She really doesn't have any other political choice. She has a future in the Senate and perhaps as Governor of New York. If she does not fully support Obama she will become a pariah within the party. 

She already has some fences to mend. Check out this ad from the RNC taking on Obama's experience, using the Clintons' own words....

What McCain needs to do to win

John McCain wants to make this race about one thing Barack Obama.

Because if this race becomes about the issues, Iraq, Climate Change, Healthcare, Housing, or any of the other issues Americans are deeply concerned about McCain finds himself on the wrong side of the policy ledger. Therefore, McCain is going to build the largely negative argument that Obama isn't ready or qualified to be president compared to the well seasoned McCain. 

This is a mistake for two reasons, firstly, Hillary Clinton (in a better position than McCain) tried it and it backfired. Secondly, McCain doesn't want to be the old man lecturing the young man, a point made expertly by The Fix. 

Victory Coverage Around the Web

Here are some interesting takes on Obama's victory...

Roger Simon on Obama taking the mantle.

Ben Smith on the global significance and trials ahead.

The NY Times sums it up.

The Fix on what Obama said, and what Hillary meant.

A below a screen shot from the Huffington Post...

Obama's Victory Speech

Nodding in turn to his supports, Hillary Clinton, and her supporters. Senator Obama claimed victory in this speech....

What Obama is up against

Obama's nomination is historic and the nation should be proud of the progress it has made. I started off this morning trolling youtube for a clip of Obama's speech from last night (which I shall post soon), but in searching for that clip I ran across this clip. The title is what frightened me, quoted exactly, "Dont Vote For A Nigger To Be Our President." This is what a black candidate is up against, still, in this country. 

Quick Hit: Try again McCain

Last night as I watched John McCain give what his supporter said would be a "big speech" I was curious to see what kinds of things the Republican nominee had stored up in the past few months. Of all three speeches, I expected his to have the most substance, having so much to say since there has been a virtual media blackout on the Republicans since late winter. His campaign director came on the television and set up a nice preview: Congratulate Hillary and reach out to her supporters, establish himself as a candidate for change, and open the general campaign by making his pitch to the American people. As I watched, I felt terrible that I kept thinking, "Damn he looks so old and confused". His speech was filled with awkward moments where McCain would pause and wait for an overwhelming cheer from his audience, who seemed just as confused and as unenergized as the candidate himself. And yet I continued to watch thinking, "this is awful". Only when the speech was finished and I switched over to CNN, which my friend told me had dropped the speech midway through because it was lackluster even Republicans were admitting that the speech was severely lacking. McCain had better not allow Obama to dictate the agenda and tempo of this general election or he will be sorely outclassed and outspoken. For the first time John McCain showed his age in this election. That is something both the Republicans and the McCain camp cannot afford. Think Nixon and Kennedy televised debate. Yeah, it was that bad.

Ready the Media Landslide

It appears the delegate math is finally coming in to focus. With a rush of Superdelegates of the course of today, and the likely outcomes of Montana and South Dakota, Senator Barack Obama will have clinched the Democratic nomination for president. 

I would not be forthcoming if I didn't admit my excitement at this outcome. I think it will be interesting to see how the media covers this story. Will it be all triumph or will they emphasize his short comings? Tonight and tomorrow, we'll find out. 

Energy Efficiency Myths and Truths

There are those that say the American way of life will not allow for energy conservation. That our economy cannot grow and worry about Global Warming at the same time. Well there's a study out now that will prove that thinking wrong. I found it on the lightsearch blog, where there is a fantastic summary. But you can also download the entire ACEE report here.

Some interesting facts (as summarized by Lightsearch):

• Given the right choices and investments in the many cost-effective but underutilized energy-efficient technologies, the United States can cost-effectively reduce energy consumption by an additional 25-30% or more over the course of the next 20-25 years;

• Annual investments in energy-efficient technologies currently support 1.6 million U.S. jobs; the $300 billion invested in energy efficiency in 2004 was three times the amount invested in traditional energy infrastructure;

Rumors Abound: Clinton is Done

Ben Smith at politico is reporting in his blog that Clinton will end it tonight, sort of. Give it a read here. 

A Political Culture of Self-Entitlement

Yes, it's still going. The primary that would never end feels like it could stretch past November at this point. And this voter is over it.

Why does this continue to drag on? Because no one wants to hurt the feelings of a Clinton.

After Hilary Clinton grabbed a win in Puerto Rico, the NY Times chimed in drumming up its importance by stating that her victory came "among Hispanic voters, who are a key constituency in the fall election." First of all, Puerto Rico doesn't vote in the fall. It's not a U.S. state. The fact that they vote in the primaries at all is bewildering to me. So drawing that corollary seemed besides the point. But beyond that is this idea that somehow she's being cheated. "'There’s nobody taking Hillary’s side but Hillary people,' said Donald Fowler of South Carolina, a former national party chairman and one of Mrs. Clinton’s most prominent supporters, referring to her campaign’s suggestions that she might seek to challenge the way the party resolved the fight this weekend over seating the Michigan and Florida delegations. 'It’s too bad. She deserves better than this.'" She deserves better? I'm sorry. Why is that? Because her last name is Clinton and you want to make nice to the former president?

Take away the Clinton name and Hillary would have been forced out of the primary race by now. Just by fact of numbers, the establishment would have declared their victor. And there would be no uproar. But you cannot take away the Clinton name, and the establishment still feels like it is in debt to that name, so they will pander to it as much as they can. And that is what creeps me out--former President Clinton sulking around the White House saying "I want, I want" and collecting on past favors.

Just because Hilary was thought to be the obvious nominee before the primary started does not mean that she deserves to be. Just because the Clintons led the Democrats back to power in the past doesn't mean that we owe them anything. And perhaps instead of saying "I want, I want", they should try to figure out what voters want.

George Will on Cap and Trade: A Policythought Response

George Will, one of the few columnists out there that actually comments on policy. This week, gives his scathing critique of the carbon cap-and-trade system being debated in congress this week. I don't always agree with Mr. Will, this is yet another example. Will argues, that cap and trade is essentially a very well-cloaked tax. That a carbon-tax is politically untenable so instead a cap and trade system is the way to go for greedy politicians that essentially want more power over the our lives. He continues to argue that since the funds collected from cap and trade will fund government investment program, dedicated to fighting the climate crisis and building an alternative energy program, it's a form of pervasive socialism dedicated to destroying the free market, with governments picking and choosing winners and losers and fundamentally shaping our economy. Take a minute to read his column, then come back and read my retort.

George Will seems, at least in his tone, skeptical of the idea of man-made global warming and climate change. I don't expect everyone to agree with prevailing scientific opinion or logic. Just because many do, doesn't mean everyone should. The science behind global warming is as certain as any science can be, it's good enough for most of the world's experts (i.e. those not paid by oil companies to think otherwise) but it doesn't have to be good enough for Mr. Will.

What is an economic imperative however, is the oil economy. We have built our economy and indeed our lifestyle on the idea of personal autonomy- the idea that anyone can own a car and drive wherever they please to do whatever they like. It's as American as apple pie. Cheap energy, largely based on a ready supply first of domestic, then foreign oil and coal led to our automobiles, homes, factories, and offices burning fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate and fundamentally changing the way the nation worked, lived and played.

Now as the developing world begins to move from childhood to adolescence, they demand the same energy use that we bask in. The need for carbon-based fuel is rising more rapidly than supply can keep up. It is this issue that the government must attack. The problem of both domestic and worldwide energy shortage. If that is dealt with intelligently, then we solve an economic woe for our nation, but also, stem the tide of global warming.

The economic issues we are facing require a governmental response on the level of the New Deal. The private sector is concerned, rightly, with is its own short term economic viability-not with the long term problems of energy crisis. As a nation we need governmental intervention to create market conditions that will stimulate innovation and growth over the long term. We encourage diversification in all other manner of investment. Yet when it comes to our energy investment portfolio, we invest only in Oil and Coal. Conservatives, like Mr. Will would have you believe that the market can solve any problem. The Great Depression was not solved by the market alone. The Federal works programs of FDR's new deal were the bedrock of the new solution.

Am I likening the Cap and Trade Program under consideration today with FDR's New Deal? Of course not, however I believe the government must create a challenging environment for industry to come up with solutions to problems. The government must create the kind of challenge, and crisis that we could see in the future, today. To solve a this giant problem before we really are behind the 8-ball. If, for instance Saudi oil supplies were cut off from us by some natural disaster out of man's control, would we simply cease to function? If every drop of oil disappeared tomorrow, what would we do?

We would solve the problem, we would go through a devestating period, and then the nation would pick itself up and build wind, hydro, solar, nuclear and coal plants (clean or not) to solve the energy crisis. Why do conservatives fear government intervention when it comes to solving the greatest problem in our history? Mr. Will, cap and trade solved the acid rain problem. Why shouldn't we try it to solve not global climate change, but our Oil problem?

The fight they can't have

The democratic party needs the super delegates to get together and
make a decision. While I've written before that Hillary Clinton should
stay in the fight as long as she likes, and I still believe that. I
also believe that if the party allows this fight to fracture the party
further and further then they will endanger what should be a
Democratic year.

Barack Obama is being forced to fight a two front war splitting his
time and resources between the battle against Clinton and the battle
against McCain. It's time for super delegates to rally behind the man
who mathematically will be their nominee and not allow the party to
fracture further as Hillary Clinton is allowed to point out every flaw
in the Democrats soon-to-be nominee.