Today, Barack Obama is being attacked by the right-wing noise machine. His latest dreamt-up offense? Not wearing an American flag lapel pin, which apparently makes him unpatriotic.

Of course, anyone with $2 in their pocket can wear an American flag pin, regardless of what they believe. In fact, how many politicians have worn that pin while tearing down nearly everything this great country stands for?

Patriotism isn’t defined by what we wear–it’s defined by what we do. And through his actions, Barack Obama has shown us what true patriotism is:

Patriotism is standing up for our Constitutional rights against a corrupt, power-hungry White House.

Patriotism is bringing our troops home and making sure they’re taken care of when they get here.

Patriotism is standing up for America’s working class, giving them living wage and a good standard of living.

Patriotism is making sure Americans have access to health care regardless of their income.

Patriotism is standing up to polluters to preserve this beautiful country for future generations.

Patriotism is securing our borders while helping immigrants become citizens.

Patriotism is fighting for clean, open government that’s held accountable to the people.

Patriotism is helping Americans keep their homes by standing up to predatory lenders.

Patriotism is standing up to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorist groups.

Patriotism isn’t wearing a $1.75 American flag lapel pin made on a Chinese assembly line.

So, Barack Obama doesn’t wear a flag lapel pin. But you know what? Neither does Mitt Romney. Or John McCain. Or Mike Huckabee. Or John Boehner. Or Mitch McConnell. Or RNC Chair Mike Duncan. And neither did Newt Gingrich. Or Tom DeLay. Or Bill Frist. Or even Ronald Reagan, for that matter.

So let’s put this half-baked smear to bed once and for all, because America deserves better than right-wing gutter politics.

Image from The Washington Post

From CNN:

He’s the most prominent Democrat yet to take a side in the presidential election, but two sources close to Al Gore tell us not to expect the former vice president to endorse either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama any time during the primary season.

The sources say Gore talks with both Clinton and Obama, and is on good terms with both. But with Sen. John Kerry and Bill Clinton both aligned to a candidate, Gore has a role to serve as the neutral elder statesman in the party.

If an agreement needs to be struck between Clinton and Obama down the road, Gore is in position to be the likely facilitator of that discussion.

Gore also will want to work closely with whoever wins the nomination to promote an environmental agenda.

And why would he? His last endorsemet–Howard Dean in 2004–didn’t pan out exactly as he planned.  And though he’s far more influential this time around, having re-invented himself and devoted himself to environmental activism, why would he jeopardize his work toward ending global warming by jumping into an intra-party fight?

The fact that Gore opted out of running this year–despite the fact that he could have had a good shot at winning the Democratic nomination–shows that he has no interest in  Presidential politics.  Endorsing someone wouldn’t do him any good–Gore will stump for the Democratic nominee regardless, and if the next President is a Democrat it’s guaranteed he’ll have his/her ear–but it could hurt him by putting his good work in jeopardy.  If he backs one candidate, the other candidate’s supporters will stop seeing him in a positive light; if he back the losing candidate, he runs the risk of being shut out.

So, I wouldn’t expect a Gore endorsement anytime soon.  On the other hand, John Edwards has begun to send some signals…

I was watching C-SPAN today when I heard something I couldn’t hep but comment on. During an interview with the chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, a conservative African-American woman called in and stated “the Democrats have done nothing for me.”

The problem here is that statement is completely wrong–throughout American history, Democrats have done some exceptional things for this country, and we deserve recognition our accomplishments. So, if you’ve benefited from Democratic policies, make sure to thank a Democrat.

If you’re not a wealthy landowner and you vote, thank a Democrat: Andrew Jackson got rid of laws that discriminated against working-class Americans by restricting voting to wealthy landholders.

If you’re a woman and you vote, thank a Democrat: Woodrow Wilson supported the 19^th Amendment, which was passed and ratified during his Presidency.

If you have ever voted while between the ages of 18 and 21, thank a Democrat: Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Congress passed the 26^th Amendment.

If you never experienced racial segregation, thank a Democrat: Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, which outlawed racial segregation in public schools and public places.

If you never had to take a literacy test or pay a poll tax to vote, thank a Democrat: Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, which outlawed literacy tests as a requirement for voting, as well as the 24^th Amendment, which outlawed poll taxes.

If you earn a fair wage, get paid overtime and/or was never subjected to child labor, thank a Democrat: Franklin Roosevelt and the Democratic Congress passed the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, which set the first national minimum wage, created requirements for overtime compensation and outlawed child labor.

If you have ever received benefits through Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, thank a Democrat: Franklin Roosevelt and the Democratic Congress passed the Social Security Act, while Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Congress passed Medicare and Medicaid.

If you or your child has ever benefited from Head Start or SCHIP, thank a Democrat: Head Start was passed by Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Congress, while SCHIP was championed by Ted Kennedy and signed into law by Bill Clinton.

If you have ever worked in a clean, safe workplace, thank a Democrat: in 1970, the Democratic Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which created national standards for workplace cleanliness and safety.

If you or anyone in your family has taken time off work due to a serious illness, accident, or birth of a child, thank a Democrat: Chris Dodd championed the Family and Medical Leave Act, which required employers to provide paid time off for their employees due to sickness, injury or to care for a newborn child. The Democratic Congress passed FMLA, which was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

If you, your parents or your grandparents were helped by the G.I. Bill, thank a Democrat: the G.I. Bill granted veterans loans to pursue higher education and purchase houses, as well as providing unemployment benefits. It was one of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal initiatives, and it was passed by a Democratic Congress.

If you’re a woman who is paid as much as your male coworkers, thank a Democrat: Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Congress passed the Equal Pay Act of 1963, guaranteeing equal pay for workers regardless of their gender.

If you’ve never been discriminated against due to your age or physical disability, thank a Democrat: The Age Discrimination in Employment Act was passed by Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Congress, while the Americans with Disabilities Act was also passed by a Democratic Congress.

If you enjoy clean air and water, thank a Democrat: the Clean Air Act was passed by the Democratic Congress in 1963 and signed into law by Lyndon Johnson; the Clean Water Act was passed by the Democratic Congress in 1977 and signed into law by Jimmy Carter.

If you enjoy freedom and security, thank a Democrat: James Monroe established the Monroe Doctrine, which kept Europe interfering with the free Western Hemisphere. Andrew Jackson fought against the British in the War of 1812, engineering the American victory at New Orleans. James K. Polk rebuffed an invasion from Mexico and acquired the entire American southwest in the Mexican-American War. Franklin Roosevelt mobilized America to defeat fascism, turning the U.S. into a world superpower. Harry Truman created the Marshall Plan–which stopped the spread of Communism in Europe– and he took the initiative in establishing NATO. John Kennedy stood up to the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis and in Southeast Asia. Bill Clinton negotiated the historic Oslo Accords between Israel and Palestine, and he helped to both end the violence in Northern Ireland and the genocide in Kosovo.

Of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg. And, of course, this isn’t to say that other political parties haven’t helped people or made this country better. But I doubt there is anyone in this country who can reasonably claim that the Democratic Party has not made their lives better in some way, and I wanted to take some time to point that out.

Another news cycle, another embarrassing story for Mike Huckabee. This time, it’s a book he wrote in 1998 called Kids Who Kill. Some key excerpts:

Abortion, environmentalism, AIDS, pornography, drug abuse, and homosexual activism have fragmented and polarized our communities.

[...]

It is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations—from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia.

[...]

The legal commitment of ideological secularism to any and all of the fanatically twisted fringes of American culture—pornographers, gay activists, abortionists, and other professional liberationists—is a pathetically self-defeating crusade that has confused liberty with license.

[...]

Men who have rejected God and do not walk in faith are more often than not immoral, impure, and improvident (Gal. 5:19-21). They are prone to extreme and destructive behavior, indulging in perverse vices and dissipating sensuality (1 Cor. 6:9-10). And they—along with their families and loved ones—are thus driven over the brink of destruction (Prov. 23:21).

Blaming pro-choice Americans, LGBT rights activists and environmentalism for school violence? Lumping the LGBT community in with pedophiles and necrophiliacs? Asserting that religion is the only source of morality? I knew Huck was a right-wing extremist, but I had no idea he was this extreme.

Then again, this was pretty much the strategy of the conservative culture warriors of the ’90’s–take a bunch of people you don’t like, lump them all together, blame them for society’s ills and prescribe religion/Republicanism as a solution. I’m surprised that Huck–who is renowned by our political press for his “charm” and “authenticity”–would subscribe to this cookie-cutter right-wing boilerplate.  Then again, with Huck, stuff like this is hardly surprising.

Another news cycle, another disturbing revelation about Bad Luck Huck. How long until the GOP realizes just how many skeletons there are in his closet? Or do they not even realize that this guy is a complete embarrassment, that it would be political suicide to hand their party over to him?

Personally, I’m wondering what tomorrow will bring…

Recently, Ron Paul broke the one-day fundraising record for a Republican Presidential candidate, raking in approximately $5.2 million dollars. Political Wire has more:

“Most of the donations were made over the Internet in what the supporters called a “money bomb” timed to coincide with the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. The last fund-raising blitz, which took in 40,000 donations, was timed to coincide with Guy Fawkes Day, which commemorates a British mercenary who tried unsuccessfully to kill King James I on Nov. 5, 1605.” The record take means Paul will likely lead his rivals for money raised during the fourth quarter.

Paul’s supporters will tell you to “Google Ron Paul;” in light of his recent fundriaising success, let’s give that a shot and see what he actually stands for–Orcinus has the definitive account, and it’s nothing less than appalling:

• Ron Paul wants to deny women control of their own reproductive systems–despite calling himself a libertarian, he doesn’t seem to mind government intrusion when it comes to abortion. (H.R.1095 H.R.777 H.R.1548 H.AMDT.1003 (A024) H.AMDT.380 (A022) H.AMDT.312 (A011) H.R.4984). Not only that, but Paul wants to eliminate the legal distinction between a zygote and a person (H.R.2597 H.R.1094 H.R.776 H.R.392).
• Paul wants to prevent the federal courts–or even federal precedent–for being used by those who have been discriminated against due to religious beliefs or sexual orientation. His bills would also prevent cross-state recognition of gay marriage (H.R.300 H.R.4379 H.R.5739 H.R.3893 H.R.1547 H.R.4922 H.R.5078). He also wants to limit the court system’s ability to hear abortion cases (H.R.1545 H.R.1546 H.R.2875 H.R.3400 H.R.3691 H.R.15169).
• Despite claiming to be a libertarian, Paul opposes allowing people to express their freedom of speech by burning the American flag (H.J.RES.80 H.J.RES.82).
• Ron Paul wants to repeal workplace safety and health legislation, including the Occupational Health and Safety Act (H.R.2310 H.R.13264). And so much for giving power to the people–he wants to make it easier to decertify labor unions (H.R.694). In addition, Paul also opposes the minimum wage (H.R.2962) and wants to destroy Social Security (H.R.2030 H.R.4604).
• Paul opposes pro-democracy voting reforms, even after the disastrous 2000 election (H.CON.RES.48 H.CON.RES.443). He also opposes the motor voter laws, which make it easier for people–particularly poorer people–to register to vote (H.R.2139).
• Ron Paul wants to gut anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation (H.R.1247 H.R.1789) and eliminate corporate oversight (H.R.1204). For someone who seems to support giving power to the people, the only people he wants to help are the already-powerful.
• Paul wants to repeal anti-discimination laws (H.R.3863 H.R.5842 H.R.4982), as well as eliminating birthright citizenship (H.J.RES.46 H.J.RES.42), which is in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
• Ron Paul wants to repeal or severely weaken environmental protection legislation (H.J.RES.104 H.R.3735 H.R.4423 H.R.2504 H.R.7079 H.R.724), as well as promoting offshore oil drilling, building more oil refineries and mining for coal on federal land (H.R.2415 H.R.4004 H.R.393 H.R.4639 H.R.5293 H.R.6936).
• Paul, who portrays himself as pro-peace, opposes dismantling ICBM silos in the United States (H.R.1665 H.R.3769) and supports keeping the U.S. out of the International Criminal Court (H.R.1154 H.AMDT.480 (A010) H.R.4169 H.CON.RES.23 H.RES.416). He has also tried to limit the impact of international law on the United States (H.J.RES.1028 H.J.RES.492 H.CON.RES.49 H.R.4118 H.R.1658), going as far as trying to withdraw America from the U.N. (H.R.1146 H.R.1146 H.AMDT.285 (A038) H.R.1146 H.AMDT.190 (A024) H.AMDT.191 (A025) H.R.1146 H.AMDT.306 (A006) H.R.1146 H.AMDT.138 (A010) H.R.1146 H.R.3890 H.R.3891 H.R.6358 H.R.14788). In addition, Paul supports withdrawing the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (H.J.RES.566) and wants to re-establish U.S. ’sovereignty’ over the Panama Canal (H.CON.RES.231 H.RES.1410 H.R.2522).
• Paul wants to weaken our education system by using federal power to interfere with state efforts to improve standards for teachers (H.R.966 H.R.1706 H.R.4653).
• Once again pandering to the powerful, Paul wants to reduce the tax burden of the wealthiest Americans, including those who inherited their fortunes. In addition, he wants to disproportionately burden the poor and working clas by imposing a flat tax (H.J.RES.23 H.J.RES.14 H.J.RES.15 H.J.RES.45 H.J.RES.81 H.J.RES.116 H.R.5484 H.R.2137 H.R.1664 H.J.RES.23 H.R.6352 H.R.4569 H.R.15619). Paul also wants to force us to pay our income tax every month, eliminating withholding (H.R.1364 H.R.4855).
• Paul also wants to abandon the dollar, creating 50 state currencies instead (H.R.2779 H.R.3931).

So, I Googled Ron Paul, and I found a record of conservative, pro-corporate, reactionary policies that are to the far right of even the Republican Party. And keep in mind that I didn’t include some of Paul’s crazier aspects, like his obsession with the gold standard or his desire to “protect” American troops from wearing the insignia of the U.N. or any “foreign states.”

I don’t know what his followers see in him, but it seems that they have been taken in by Paul’s campaign rhetoric, which doesn’t match his record in Congress at all. Personally, I wonder if they would support him so vehemently if they followed their own advice and Googled Ron Paul. Either that, or this country has far more deep-pocketed right-wing extremists than I thought.

House Democrats stood up and passed a progressive energy bill that will curb global warming and end American dependence on foreign oil. From the Associated Press:

The House approved the first increase in federal automobile fuel efficiency requirements in three decades Thursday as part of an energy bill that also repeals billions of dollars oil company tax breaks and encourages use of renewable fuels.

The bill, passed by a vote of 235-181, faces a certain filibuster in the Senate and a veto threat from the White House.

[...]

“We will send our energy dollars to the Midwest, not the Middle East,” countered House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, referring to the bill’s emphasis on promoting renewable energy sources, especially ethanol, which would see a sevenfold increase by 2022 to 36 billion gallons a year.

“The point of this is, are we about the past or are we about the future,” declared Pelosi, D-Calif.

The bill would roll back $13.5 billion in tax breaks enjoyed by the five largest U.S. oil companies with the money to be used for tax incentives for development of renewable energy, including cellulosic ethanol from grasses and wood chips and biodiesel, and to spur energy efficiency programs and conservation.

“There’s nothing in here that’s going to lower gas prices in America … nothing that is going to help American families deal with heating costs this winter … nothing to increase production,” complained Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio.

The centerpiece of the bill is a requirement to boost automobile fuel economy by 40 percent to an industry average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, the first such increase since 1975, when Congress enacted the federal auto fuel economy requirements.

[...]

Her decision to insist on including the tax increases on oil companies — costing them $13.5 billion in taxes over 10 years — surprised even some environmentalists and set the stage for a contentious fight in the Senate where Republican leaders have indicated they will try to strip it from the bill.

[Emphasis Added]

That’s the Republican Party for you–standing up for Big Oil and selling out the American people.

This is a huge step toward dealing with our energy crisis, which is squeezing the poor and middle class. We’re paying massive amounts of money for oil, gas and electricity–something needs to be done, and the Democrats are the only ones who can do it.

In 2005, the Republican Congress passed an energy bill containing $14.5 billion in subsidies for the oil industry–which, by the way, was charging record prices and turning record profits at the time. Two years after that, oil and gas are still massively expensive–turns out those subsidies did no good for anyone who wasn’t an oil executive.

We need to invest in clean, renewable energy sources–both the high price of energy and the threat of global warming necessitate it. And while Mitch McConnell and the Roadblock Republicans will filibuster this bill, selling us out in order to protect their friends in Big Oil, the Democrats will keep standing up for the little guy.

Of course, the best way to make this bill a law is to elect more Democrats–hopefully, January 2009 will end the cronyism and make America’s energy policy work for the American people.

The Democratic debate in Las Vegas is underway!  I missed the first few minutes, but let’s jump into it with a question on immigration:

Unfortunately, Blitzer is asking one of those yes-or-no questions that boils a complex issue down to a one-word answer–immigration is bigger than just one word, and we need a real debate on this pressing issue.

Obama supports drivers licenses for immigrants, as does Edwards, and both talk up comprehensive immigration reform.

Clinton opposes–a big change from her equivocation last week–without any further comment.

Kucinich argues that NAFTA needs to be renegotiated, doesn’t believe anyone should count as illegal.

Richardson spoke about his record dealing with immigration as Governor of New Mexico.

Biden opposes.

Question: Should there be merit pay for teachers? To Dodd.

Dodd: Merit pay should be based on the effort teacher puts in, not how well their students do necessarily or how good their school is.  This is a critical issue, and Dodd says it’s the most important issue–need the most educated generation we’ve ever produced.  Need to spend more of our budget on education–reform No Child Left Behind, gets big applause calling it a “disaster.”  26 years in Senate, began children’s caucus, dealt with childhood literacy, head start and autism issues.

Question: Are there any issues with teacher’s unions on which you disagree? To Kucinich

Kucinich: My father was a union member, I’m a union member, it’s essential to worker’s rights.  Says he’s the candidate of workers in this campaign because he’s stood for jobs for all, health care for all, etc.  Can address these needs directly because he remembers where he came from; is willing to oppose unions on some issues.

Richardson: Wants to be education President.  Wants a large minimum wage for teachers, need to be bolder with NCLB, wants preschool and full day kindergarten for children.  Cites low U.S. ratings in science, supports science, math, art, as well as college education policy dealing with large loans.

Question: Should there be teacher merit pay? To Clinton

Clinton: Supports school-based merit pay to get teachers to go where they’re needed.  Teachers are a team, and they need to be rewarded as such.  You need to weed out teachers who do not do a good job, they should not be teaching our children.  Believes that education has served country well, but needs to be reimagined. We need to collaborate and bring teachers to table, not talk down to them like Bush administration.

Biden: Excellent teacher should be judged based on if they work outside the classroom to improve teaching skills.  Wife is a teacher, earned additional degrees to gain additional knowledge.  Who makes decision on merit pay? Believes in teaching excellence, wants to demand more for teachers in terms of participation after school and in school.  Agrees with Richardson in providing higher base pay to teachers.

Question: Pakistan’s president has suspended constitution, placed opposition leader under house arrest, etc.  You and others assert U.S. needs to continue economic aid to Pakistan–should our safety be more important than strategic value? To Biden.

Biden: Spoke to President of Pakistan, encouraged him to restore democratic system, threatened to cut off military aid.  Indicated we should move to Pakistan policy to help develop middle class in that country, help education and NGOs.  Need to develop relationship between US and Pakistan.

Richardson: Got principles wrong in Pakistan policy–security more important than human rights.  If he’s President, it would be the other way around. Make assistance conditional, encourage President to restore democracy and have elections and allow opposition and restore court and go after terrorists.  Has done a very weak job going after terrorism.  Islamic parties get maybe 15% of the vote, disputes ideas that moderates would win democratic election.

Blitzer: Human rights, at times, are more important than American national security?

Richardson: Yes, and we have to say it to the world.  Not about what Halliburton wants in Iraq.  Our strength is our values.

Edwards: Need to focus on basic goals.  Get extremists under control, support democratic reformers, make sure elections take place, make certain nuclear weapons are under control.  Bigger question–Pakistan is an example that our ad hoc policy of dealing with nuclear weapons–which is necessary, at times–will not work over the long term.  What America needs to do is to lead a long-term international effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Only way to keep us and world secure

Obama: Concepts are not contradictory.  They are complimentary, Pakistan is a great example.  $10 billion over seven years, neither restored democracy or defeated terrorism.  Pakistani democracy helps us in the war on terror–as President, will do everything necessary to ensure nuclear weapons do not fall into the hands of extremists, but we cannot uphold anti-democratic forces otherwise it feeds impression we only care about ourselves.

Dodd: Finds it ironic that Bush urges Turks not to invade Iraq and lectures Pakistan on destroying the constitution.  National security is most important–promise to protect constitution and country from all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Elections are only one note in the tune of democracy–cannot have totally free elections, or extremists will win.  Need to remind Pakistan of obligations they have to fulfill–if they fail, we have to terminate relationship.

Clinton: National security is most important, must protect and defend United States.  Connection between democratic regime and heightened security for US. After 9/11, Bush had chance to take a better course, and now we are in a bind due partly due to Bush’s failed policies.  Have to tell Pakistan that it is not  in their or our interest to continue as they have; asked him to accept high-level Presidential envoy, but White House refused.  You have to stay on top of issues and manage them, requiring Presidential attention.

Question: It’s true that 2007 was deadliest year since 2003, but it’s also true that troop deaths have been declining since spring.  At the end of October, it was at it’s lowest in two years.  Was Petraeus correct that the troop increase made improvements? To Richardson

Richardson: We should not talk about body counts–one American is too much.  There has not been progress  3/18 benchmarks have been met–even with Republican math, it’s a failing grade. 60% of Iraqis say it’s okay to shoot at Americans, and our troops are suffering.  We must get our troops out, cannot leave residual force unlike his colleagues support.  Need a political compromise–share oil revenue, all-Muslim, all-Arabic peacekeeping force.  Other nations contributing to rebuilding Iraq, where we have spent $500 billion that we should have spent here.

Kucinich: Occupation is fueling insurgency.  In 2003, proposed withdrawal plan–only one to vote against war.  Troops should be brought home now–Congressional Democrats have not done nearly enough, should not provide one more time.  On Pakistan– you cannot look at the destabilization there and in many other Muslim nations without acknowledging role the war in Iraq has played.  Strength through peace–no more unlilateralism, no more preemption, negotiation and peace.

Obama: American troops in Iraq are doing a great job and making a small difference, but overall strategy has failed because Iraqi behavior has not changed.  Will bring the war to a close, troops out in 16 months, talk to Iraqi actors and regional powers.  People are on 2, 3, 4 tours, families are carrying a huge burden, this year had highest casualty rates since war started–same in Afghanistan.  We’re back to where we started–deaths  are declining because they went so high in prior year.

Question: About unsafe toys from China, are proponents of trade with China at fault?

Kucinich: People have to take responsibility, yes it is their fault.  When we first made trade deals with China, we knew they had various issues.  Edwards votes for China trade knowing that workers would be hurt–you’re a trial lawyer, you should have known better.  People have to take responsibility for their position.

Edwards: Not sure what being a trial lawyer has to do with it.  America’s trade policy has been a complete disaster.  NATA, CAFTA, Columbia, Korea, Peru…believes that powerful interests, particularly corporate interests, have taken over government to the detriment to ordinary Americans.  In 1993, Democrats controlled House, Senate and White House, proposed universal healthcare–corporate interests killed it.  Yet, NAFTA was on the table, and corporate interests supported it, and it got passed.  Cannot replace corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats.

Blitzer: Was your vote for China trade a mistake?

Edwards: It was right to bring them into WTO, wrong to not hold them accountable.

Blitzer: Remember NAFTA passing under Clinton.  Was Perot right? To Clinton

Clinton: It’s a vague memory.  NAFTA did not do what many have hoped.  Need trade relations that are smart, that help the American worker and consumer.  It’s not just the toys, it’s the pet food and prescription drugs.  Need an independent investigative arm on Chinese government and companies that import items into US, ensure imported items are safe.

Blitzer: Was NAFTA a mistake?

Clinton: To the extent that it did not deliver what it was supposed to, yes.  Need a trade time out, need to reevaluate our trade policy, need enforceable standards.

Dodd: Time out is a good idea, but Clinton and others voted for Peru free trade act.  If a US corporation produced contaiminated goods, they would have been shut down in 15 minutes.

Obama: Supports Peru agreement, right thing to do, opposed to other free trade plans.  You know what Japan does when importing Chinese goods? Send over own inspectors, say if you do not follow our rules you cannot import your goods.  Why doesn’t the US do that? We are the biggest market in the world–problem with most favored trading status, should have said we would review that every year to ensure they safeguarded consumers.

Biden: Not the agreement, the man.  Under the WTO, we can shut this down–we have a President who won’t enforce the law.  We have power under the agreement–enforce the agreement.

Roberts: Oil near $100 a barrel, highlights need for other technologies.  To Obama, Illinois gets 40% of power from nuclear, but opposes keeping nuclear waste in Illinois.  Where?

Obama: Not fair to send it to Nevada.  We have to develop storage capacity based on sound stage–labs are trying to develop ways to store nuclear waste. Nuclear power not best option–crisis that needs to be addressed.  Must cap greenhouse gases, because climate change is real and affecting the planet.  Need to charge polluters, reinvest money in other sources of power–solar, wind, biodiesel, etc.

Blitzer: Where do you send the waste if you can’t develop new technologies?

Obama: Currently on-site, but you cannot assume we cannot develop new technologies.  We can do it.  We need bold leadership in White House to combat global warming and develop new technologles.

Richardson: Future is renewable.  You don’t put waste in Yucca mountain, opposes storage there for various reasons, opposes regional sties as well.  Would turn Yucca into national laboratory, need to find a way to safely dispose of nuclear waste.  Technological solution–should not give nuclear energy all of these subsidies and concessions.  Need an energy revolution to shift from fossil fuels to renewable sources, 50% by 2020.  We need 30% of electricity renewable.  Americans must sacrifice a bit.

Queston: To Clinton, said her tenure at Wellsley helped her compete in all boys club of politics, but campaign criticized opponents for piling on.  Is campaign exploiting her gender?

Clinton: Not playing gender cared, playing winning card.  Not attacking her because she’s a woman, attacking her becaue she’s ahead.  Truman said  if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, and I feel very comfortable in the kitchen.  We can laugh about it because it’s exciting to look at this field of candidates–if it hadn’t been for the progress of America, many candidates up here could not run.  Proud to be very first woman to run for President.

Brown: What did you mean by the boy’s club?

Clinton: There may be some impediments to women, and it’s been my goal to been part of this great movement of progress that affects all of us, but particularly to me as a woman.  Must aim at the highest, hardest glass ceiling.  Not running because I’m a woman, but because I’m the best candidate.  Talks about the people she’s inspired.

Blitzer: Do any of you feel Clinton is playing gender card?

Edwards: All candidates should be held to the same standard.  Nothing personal, need strong candidate, and there are differences between all of us.  Like the difference between corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans.  Some of us have taken different approach–Clinton supports establishment, and voters have choices.

I’m sure you all know by now that Al Gore, along with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has won this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. Gore’s efforts to bring attention to the threat of global warming has changed the political and social landscape of this country, and it has laid the foundation for substantive change that will protect our planet for untold generations to come. Via Daily Kos, I came to Paul Krugman’s article in today’s New York Times about Al Gore. Some excerpts:

What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?

[...]

The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative point of view, is that he keeps being right. In 1992, George H. W. Bush mocked him as the “ozone man,” but three years later the scientists who discovered the threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In 2002 he warned that if we invaded Iraq, “the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.” And so it has proved.

[...]

For the truth Mr. Gore has been telling about how human activities are changing the climate isn’t just inconvenient. For conservatives, it’s deeply threatening.

Consider the policy implications of taking climate change seriously.

“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals,” said F.D.R. “We know now that it is bad economics.” These words apply perfectly to climate change. It’s in the interest of most people (and especially their descendants) that somebody do something to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but each individual would like that somebody to be somebody else. Leave it up to the free market, and in a few generations Florida will be underwater.

[...]

Everything I’ve just said should be uncontroversial — but imagine the reception a Republican candidate for president would receive if he acknowledged these truths at the next debate. Today, being a good Republican means believing that taxes should always be cut, never raised. It also means believing that we should bomb and bully foreigners, not negotiate with them.

So if science says that we have a big problem that can’t be solved with tax cuts or bombs — well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be slimed.

[...]

Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He’s taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy.

Al Gore has repeatedly proven to be incredibly smart and prescient. As Krugman points out, it drives the right wing crazy–they can point to nobody in their own ranks who is like Gore, who has bucked the conventional wisdom to speak the truth. The GOP values towing the party line, right or wrong–the truth is inconvenient because, to them, it’s often irrelevant to politics.

And that’s why Republicans are dragging their feet on climate change–it can’t be solved with conservative ideology. The free market won’t fix the problem. Tax cuts won’t fix the problem. Greed and self-interest won’t fix the problem. The only way to stop global warming is to be progressive–to see one another as members of the same community. To give up something to help others in need. To put our own desires aside to think about the next generation. All of these principles are absolutely anathema to conservatism.

But there’s a deeper lesson in all of this that we must take to heart. Remember those people back in 2000 who said there was no difference between the two parties? Remember those people who threw their vote away (and arguably threw the election within reach of George W. Bush) because they didn’t think a President Gore would do any better than a President Bush?

This all proves how utterly wrong those people were. In the intervening 7 years, look at the vastly different paths both men have taken.

One has become a rigid, dogmatic President whose stubbornness, obstinance and poor leadership will forever enshrine him as one of our nation’s worst leaders. He has fostered a culture of corruption, a culture of cronyism, a culture of incompetence and disregard for the law that will take our nation generations to recover from. His greatest accomplishment is a massive, bloody war that has claimed untold lives and untold billions of dollars.

Another has become a smart, charismatic, prescient leader whose foresight and passion will forever enshrine him as one of our country’s best activists. He has worked tirelessly to bring attention to one of the most pressing issues of our day, laying the groundwork for substantive change that will save untold lives. His greatest accomplishment (besides a Nobel Peace Prize) is the change that his passionate advocacy will bring.

These two men–who many people were once so quick to lump together–have emerged with two vastly different legacies. Let this be a lesson to all those who say there is no difference between the major parties–look at where Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore ended up, and tell me you wouldn’t trade one for the other in a heartbeat.