In 1996, Bill Clinton lost the white vote to Bob Dole.  In 1996, Bill Clinton was also re-elected President.

Just putting that out there.

Mickey Kantor’s words–if they are what they appear to be–are going to cause some trouble…

Can this primary just end already?

UPDATE: Already this video’s veracity is being called into question. The original source for it appears to be War Room, the documentary about Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign. The part in question is this, about 4:15 in:

If you turn the volume up, the first subtitle is clearly wrong–there’s an extra syllable there; it sounds like Kantor is saying “those people are shitting.” As for the second line, though, the subtitle seems to reflect what he says.

You could argue that he’s not talking about the people of Indiana; that’s possible, since the topic at hand is the polls, not necessarily the states. A few people who heard it also claim to hear the name “Charlie Black” in Kantor’s whispering (Black was George H.W. Bush’s spokesman at the time) after the supposed slur. But as far as I can tell, the subtitle appears to be accurate.

UPDATE II: D.A. Pennebaker–an ally of the Clintons and the director of War Room–says the video is a fake.

Here’s Atrios’ take on it:

I’m not going to try for a complete transcript, but basically Kantor gets polls from Indiana. They’re close. He says even if they don’t win the White House has got to be shitting themselves. Then what I think he says is something along the lines of “how would you like to be beaten by a worthless white n*****,” presumably meaning Bill Clinton himself and referencing the Bush I campaign team’s likely view of Clinton.

A.J. is right:

While right-wing pundits furiously try to spin Rev. Wright’s comments as speaking for anyone other than Rev. Wright, it’s vital that progressive observers and commentators remember that their machine will do anything — anything — to confuse people and divert attention from the failures of conservative governance. On the economy, on values, on social policy, and, perhaps most of all given the current situation in Iraq, on foreign affairs.

Our policies in Iraq — not to mention places like Pakistan, Indonesia, Somalia, Iran, North Korea — make America and the world a more dangerous place. Expert upon expert and report after report say so, and they’re correct. The right wing wants to tie this common-sense argument to controversial figures so they can marginalize ideas along with individuals, and it’s a smear tactic that can be devastating if people don’t stand up and identify it for what it is. They’re not making substantive critiques, they’re using the politics of destruction and distraction.

The politics of destruction. The politics of distraction. That’s what fuels the Right-Wing Noise Machine–conservatives know that if the election hinges on the issues, they’ll lose. So they try to distract the American people, paying ‘gotcha’ and distracting us from the very real problems we have to face every day.

This is why the right is pushing Wright above the fold day after day:

Bush — not Wright or Bill Clinton — is voters’ main concern

[...]

According to the poll, 73 percent of respondents disapprove of Bush’s handling of the economy and 81 percent believe the United States is in a recession.

[...]

What is your preference for the outcome of this year’s congressional elections––a Congress controlled by Republicans or a Congress controlled by Democrats?

Republican-controlled Congress ……34

Democrat-controlled Congress ……..49

And then there’s this:

The current data show that the most commonly mentioned characteristics about McCain are that he is “too old,” that he is a “good man”/”likable,” that he would give the country more of the same/be another George W. Bush, that he had a good military background, and basic dislike of him.

Interestingly, enough, “Good military background” has actually dropped from 11 percent to 8 percent. His age and the George Bush connection are quickly overshadowing his military service.

The politics of distraction give us headlines like this one:

While Malkin & Co. Continue Endless Circle Jerk On Wright, Deadliest Month Of 2008 In Iraq Gets Worse

The stakes in this election are the highest they’ve been in decades. The economy’s in ruin. Our foreign policy is in shambles. Our military is stretched to the breaking point. Gas prices are at record highs. America is in the midst of a health care crisis. Our deficit is the highest it’s ever been. Our enemies are stronger and our defenses are weaker. We as Americans face some of the biggest issues and the toughest battles of our times; we can’t afford to be distracted.

As I’ve said time and time again, Republicans can’t govern. They controlled all three branches of our government for years–we saw the effects of Republican control, and they were disastrous. They can’t win on the issues, so the GOP fires up the Right-Wing Noise Machine to distract us from the issues and focus us on trivial, pointless nonsense.

This time we can’t afford to fall for it. This time we can’t afford to fall for the politics of distraction. This time we have to stand up and tell them that this will not be tolerated. This time we must stand up and change our country for the better, and we will not let these right-wing charlatans stand in our way.

Enough is enough. Once and for all, enough is enough.

UPDATE: Bob Cesca nails it:

Have You Left No Sense Of Decency?

If the corporate media had been as diligent about watchdogging President Bush as they have been about watchdogging Reverend Wright, it’s very likely we wouldn’t have invaded Iraq.

If the corporate media had spent as much time exposing the obvious flaws and grotesque inequalities of Reaganomics throughout the last 30 years as they’ve spent on Wright, we wouldn’t necessarily be staring into the maw of another depression.

If the corporate media were as diligent about debunking the lies surrounding Iran’s so-called nuclear program as they’ve been about Wright, there wouldn’t be such a sense of inevitability in terms of attacking — or entirely obliterating — Iran.

[...]

So I have to ask the appropriate network executives the familiar yet appropriate question: Have you no sense of decency at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

It’s been a busy couple of days; let’s get to it.

Pennsylvania votes on April 22nd–according to Pollster, the Keystone State gives Clinton a 51.2% to 37.7% lead. After that, North Carolina and Indiana vote on May 6th; both of those states give Obama substantial leads (7.3% in NC and 15% in IN).

The mood must be tense in the Clinton camp right now, as plans to hold new primaries in Florida and Michigan–whose delegations were removed after they moved their primaries ahead of 2/5, in violation of DNC rules–have fallen apart.

First Florida:

After weeks of negotiations, the Florida Democratic Party said Monday it will not hold a second primary in the state.

[...]

“We researched every potential alternative process — from caucuses to county conventions to mail-in elections — but no plan could come anywhere close to being viable in Florida,” said state party chairwoman Karen Thurman in an e-mail sent to Florida Democrats late Monday afternoon.

And then Michigan:

The subscription-only MIRS service issued a release just before noon today that Senate Democrats “emerged from a closed-door caucus this morning and proclaimed that a fledging idea floated by top Michigan Democrats to create a special June 3 primary election is all but dead.”

The Clinton camp had hoped to use late contests in FL and MI to both close some ground with Sen. Obama and to generate good press going into the Democratic National Convention; with those re-vote plans tabled, the Clinton campaign will face an even steeper uphill climb to the Democratic nomination.

Another blow to Clinton occurred just few days ago, when Obama put to rest the controversy over Rev. Jeremiah Wright by giving what is already being called a speech for the history books; Obama wrote it over the span of two days, and he shared it with only a handful of advisers before it was delivered.

And now the National Archives have released Sen. Clinton’s record as First Lady, which are already being poured over by the media–unfortunately for her, the records are already dredging up memories of the Clinton scandals of the 90’s.

Political Insider has more:

An early example from ABC News: “Hillary Clinton spent the night in the White House on the day her husband had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky, and may have actually been there when it happened, according to records of her schedule released today by the National Archives.”

Another example: “In December, 2000, when both of Hillary Clinton’s brothers were involved in trying to broker pardon arrangements for associates, several days of documents show only a long list of ‘private meetings’ at the White House.”

The other big danger is that the schedules will shed some light on some of Clinton’s claims of “35 years of experience,” such as this headline from The Guardian: “Clinton a long way from the White House at key foreign policy moments.”

Or this from the AP: “She was also involved in helping her husband win congressional approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a deal she now criticizes and says she would try to change.”

In the coming days, expect the conflict over Rev. Wright to fade away and the controversy over Clinton’s White House records to ramp up.

Mitt Romney needed a win in MI, and he got one.  MI was his home state, where his father served as a popular three-term Governor; plus, Romney pulled all of his money and manpower out of NV and SC and dumped it into Michigan.   Without a victory tonight, the Romney campaign would have bee sunk.

Who propelled Mitt to victory? According to Daily Kos:

 Well, the exit polls say it was a bunch of white (96%) guys (56%) who think Bush is doing a great job (53%) and Iraq is awesome (62%).

Not necessarily the people I–or much of the country–would be inclined to agree with.

As we can see, what’s good for Romney is bad for the GOP.  Just look at the layout of the race–now there are three Republican candidates who have won major contests: Huckabee has Iowa, McCain has New Hampshire and Romney has Michigan (yes, Romney did win WY, but their delegation was cut in half and Romney was the only major candidate on the ballot).

A Romney loss in MI would have all but eliminated him as a candidate and set up a McCain-Huckabee showdown.  Now that there are three viable candidates, the GOP is farther from a front-runner than perhaps at any time since Iowa.  Worse still, the three leading candidates all have staying power since each of them appeals to a different GOP constituency: Huckabee appeals to social conservatives, Romney to business conservatives and McCain to the foreign policy hawks.

Where do we go from here? Well, I still predict that Huckabee will win anywhere there is a large Christian conservative population, since he is their anointed candidate.  Still, attacks from McCain and a re-energized Romney could dent his support and expose new skeletons in his closet.   It’s likely that McCain and Romney will be fighting over the same  GOP constituency–conservatives who are focused less on social issues and more on other issues such as the economy and foreign policy. Thus, a Romney win makes the GOP primary longer and bloodier, overall.
In terms of the media, who will successfully spin tonight? Romney won, despite the fact that McCain seemed to be gaining support in MI.  Does that prove that NH was a fluke, and that Romney is the natural GOP front-runner? Or did Romney only win because he pulled out all the stops in a state where he has significant family ties, thus making Michigan the fluke and vindicating McCain’s victory?  I suspect that which narrative takes effect will have a lot to do with who wins the next two Republican contests.

Those would be South Carolina and Nevada, both on the 19th.  South Carolina isn’t much of a mystery–it’s likely that Huckabee will pick up his second win there.  Nevada is more of an enigma–there isn’t enough viable polling coming out of Nevada to make a good prediction either way, so we’ll just have to wait and see.  With three strong representatives from the three major GOP factions running against one another, it will be interesting to watch how the rest of the primary plays out.

On the Democratic side, the only major candidate on the ballot was Hillary Clinton and there were no delegates at stake.   Yet, the way the MI primary played out is still raising some eyebrows:

According to the Fox exit polls, in the Democratic primary tonight, Clinton took 25% of the African-American vote and “uncommitted” is getting 69% of the African-American vote. Now remember, Hillary is only major candidate on the ballot. The others, and even Hillary to a degree, boycotted the primary because Michigan got crosswise with the national Democratic party over the date of their primary. Rep. Conyers (D) is an Obama supporter and he pushed for the state’s African-American community to vote “uncommitted.” There’s too much screwy about the Democratic primary in Michigan tonight to draw too much from this; but it is suggestive.

Chris Bowers frames these results as a win for Barack Obama, and I can’t say that I think he’s too far off. If African-Americans in Michigan are overwhelmingly willing to vote for a non-candidate over Clinton — particularly at a significantly higher rate than White voters — it’s not beyond the realm of imagination that they will have trouble voting at a much higher rate for Obama than for Clinton. While a lot of folks within the Beltway establishment may have chalked up the kerfuffle over past week and a half between the two leading candidates over issues of race as a win for Clinton, at least in the short term it looks like the fracas is having a seriously deleterious effect of Clinton’s support among African-Americans.

[Emphasis Added]

Nevada is next for the Democrats–it will occur on the 19th, while South Carolina will be on the 26th.

With many of the front-running candidates having won one contest by now, soon we’ll see who has staying power and who will be a one-hit wonder.  All of this, though, seems little more than preparation for Super Tuesday, which is when both primaries could very well be decided.

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.

From the Ron Paul Political Report, 1992:

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action…. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced?  We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

[...]

Taken from the Ron Paul Political Report, 1120 NASA Blvd., Suite 104,
Houston, TX 77058 for $50 per year. Call 1-800-766-7285.

[Emphasis Added]

Congressman Ron Paul, ladies and gentlemen.  Leading the ‘revolution’ with insane, half-baked ideas and outright racism.

Or something like that. From AMERICAblog:

Romney said his father had told him he had marched with King and that he had been using the word “saw” in a “figurative sense.”

“If you look at the literature, if you look at the dictionary, the term ’saw’ includes being aware of in the sense I’ve described,” Romney told reporters in Iowa. “It’s a figure of speech and very familiar, and it’s very common. And I saw my dad march with Martin Luther King. I did not see it with my own eyes, but I saw him in the sense of being aware of his participation in that great effort.”

But historical evidence, including news accounts at the time, shows that George Romney never marched with King, though he supported King’s agenda.

[...]

Romney has repeated the story of his father marching with King in some of his most prominent presidential campaign appearances, including the “Tonight” show with Jay Leno in May, his address on faith and politics Dec. 6 in Texas, and on NBC’s “Meet The Press” on Sunday, when he was questioned about the Mormon Church’s ban on full participation by black members. He said that he had cried in his car in 1978 when he heard the ban had ended, and added, “My father marched with Martin Luther King.”

Mitt Romney went a step further in a 1978 interview with the Boston Herald. Talking about the Mormon Church and racial discrimination, he said: “My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit.”….

“Clearly, Mitt Romney will say absolutely anything to smooth talk his way to the Republican nomination, even if it means playing loose with the facts on his own father’s civil rights record,” said Damien LaVera, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee.

[Emphasis Added]

This is just embarrassing–Flip Romney digs himself deeper, playing fast and loose with the facts to to cover up the fact that he’ll say anything to get elected.

The choice Republicans have seems to be between Romney and Huckabee–neither of which are paritcularly appetizing candidates. It makes you wonder, what’s worse–someone who’s completely inauthentic yet moderate, or someone who’s authentic yet completely extremist?

Keep digging, Mitt…

It’s official:

Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, whose forceful opposition to illegal immigration vaulted him to national prominence, plans to announce he is abandoning his long-shot bid for the presidency, a person close to Tancredo said Wednesday.

The five-term Colorado congressman planned to make the announcement at a news conference in Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday, the person said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for Tancredo or his campaign.

Tancredo’s campaign would only say he planned a “major announcement” Thursday.

Tancredo has consistently polled at the back of the nine-person GOP field.

Tancredo was little more than a gimmick, an extremist single-issue candidate who failed to get more than 2% of the vote at any time. In fact, if you look at his numbers, you can see that his support flatlined somewhere in the 1-2% range.

In that regard, Jonathan Singer brings up some good points:

If the Republicans were so smart to center their campaigns on anti-illegal immigration screeds during the 2005 gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, then why did they lose both contests? If the Republicans were so smart to focus on immigration during the 2006 midterms, how come they lost their majorities in both chambers of Congress and seats in races in which a hard right, anti-immigrant Republican went up against a Democrat moderate on the issue? If the Republicans were so smart to center their campaign to hold the Virginia legislature this past fall on immigration, why did they lose the lower chamber? And if Tom Tancredo was so smart to run a presidential campaign on the immigration issue, why is he dropping out in ignominy?

[...]

Tancredo may have had some successes in convincing his Republican brethren, both within the Congress and within the presidential field, to follow him off the cliff on this issue. Along these lines, Tancredo has been remarkably able at helping make his party unelectable in a lot of areas of the country (and perhaps across the country as a whole — we’ll have to wait til next fall to see if that is true). But aside from this, he has no success, whatsoever. Hard line immigration legislation isn’t likely going to pass any time soon, and the Tancredo brand of anti-immigration rhetoric has only yielded more deadlock on Capitol Hill — deadlock that has allowed the flow of unlawful entry into the United States. So congrats Mr. Tancredo. Your political career has been really fruitful.

The GOP seems to be banking on using immigration to propel themselves back into the majority, but they’re just spinning their wheels. Anti-immigrant sentiment has played a significant role in a number of Republican defeats in recent years. And now, a GOP presidential candidate who has based his entire candidacy on opposition to illegal immigration stagnated at the bottom of the pack, raising pathetic amounts of money and basically just showing up to the debates.

Considering that Hispanics are the fastest-growing group in the United States, the GOP is shooting themselves in the foot every time they pull their nativist rhetoric out of the closet. Between 2004 and 2006, the Democratic Party’s share of the Hispanic vote increased by a whopping 16%, playing a huge role in our midterm victory. A few election cycles from now, the Hispanic population of the United States will be so large–and (hopefully) so attached to the Democratic party–that a lot of red states could turn into swing states or even blue states.

If anything, Tancredo has proven that–while immigration is on America’s political radar–his particular take on it isn’t. While he may try to parlay his failed Presidential run into a future campaign, his radical anti-immigrant stance will only continue to hurt his party. Will the GOP wizen up and ditch radicals like him, or will they contribute to their own marginalization by welcoming Tancredo with open arms?

Only time will tell…

Here are some bite-sized bits of news from around the web:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that he will prevent President Bush from making controversial recess appointments over the winter holiday. Good for him–Bush brought this on himself by nominating outside-the-mainstream right-wing radicals to crucial government posts. The fact that Bush has to shoehorn these guys into office through recess appointments because they’d never get confirmed is disqualifying in and of itself. Give ‘em hell, Harry!

From the Department of Tell Me Something I Don’t Know: Mitch McConnell doesn’t have any faith that he’ll become Majority leader come January, 2009:

“There’s no question that if you just look at the numbers, we have a daunting task,” McConnell said at a Wednesday news conference on the eve of the year-end congressional adjournment. “I think the chances of you all calling me the majority leader a year from now are rather slim because of the number situation.”

When the Republican leader in the Senate says the GOP is in trouble, then the GOP is in trouble–remember, these guys can never admit when they make mistakes. Now, you would think knowing that a bunch of Republican Senators are going to get fired soon would lead the GOP to abandon their hyperpartisanship and obstructionism, but I guess not. Maybe they’ll learn after their defeat…

Meanwhile, Republican Presidential longshot Ron Paul is keeping a campaign contribution from a white supremacist leader, claiming

“Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he’s wasted his money,” Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. “Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom.”

Hey, guys? Usually campaigns donate tainted money to charity–Megan Carpenter suggests the NAACP, the Anti-Defamation League or the Southern Poverty Law Center. They don’t usually pocket the money–a lot of people dislike a Presidential campaign being run on dirty money. Just saying…

Moving on, both Mitt Romney and John McCain are complaining about Time’s choice of Vladimir Putin as Person of the Year. From the horses’ mouths:

[Romney:] “He has squelched public dissent and free press. And to suggest that someone like that is the Man of the Year is really disgusting. I’m just appalled.”

[...]

[McCain:] “I noticed that Time Magazine made President Putin the Time Magazine ‘Man of the Year…I understand that probably, but my man of the year is one Gen. David Petraeus, our general who has brought success in Iraq.”

Keep in mind, Time’s Person of the Year is not an honor or an award–it’s supposed to acknowledge a person, group of people or thing that has had significant impact in the prior year. Putin certainly fits that criteria–consider his recent  consolidation of power, forging of diplomatic ties with China and Iran, and his party’s resounding victory in Russia’s parliamentary elections.

Instead, they wanted David Petraeus. Yes, the White House political appointee who has presided over our mission in Iraq–which is currently wracked with violence, rampant sectarianism, a destroyed infrastructure and an ineffective , deeply-divided government. If you want the Person of the Year to go to the individual responsible for the recent reduction of violence in Iraq, then you should be lobbying for Moqtada Al-Sadr, not Dave Petraeus.

On that note, Congress just passed a bill dumping an additional $70 billion into Iraq, no strings attached. From CNN:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada, said Democrats would continue trying to bring an end to the conflict, and he warned that Bush was driving his GOP allies “over the cliff” by continuing the war.

“I hope this last year of his eight-year reign will be one where he will understand — and more importantly, the Republican senators will understand — that they’ve got to break away from this,” Reid said.

Rep. David Obey, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said Democrats “have tried every way known to man to bring this war to a conclusion.”

“I think it is clear that if the nation wants a change in direction with respect to this war, it has only two options,” said Obey, D-Wisconsin. “One is to elect more progressive voices in the United States Senate, and second is to elect a president who has a different set of priorities domestically and a different vision for America’s involvement in the Middle East — and especially in Iraq.”

Most Republicans repeatedly refused to break with the president. They pointed to reports of declining U.S. military and Iraqi civilian casualties since August as a sign that Bush’s commitment of nearly 30,000 additional troops to Baghdad and its surrounding province was bearing fruit.

“It’s an undeniable fact — or, should I say, an inconvenient truth — that things are getting better in Iraq, and I think the American people are noticing,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said Wednesday.

[Emphasis Added]

Shameful. I’m disappointed in the Democrats in Congress–you just gave over $400 billion to the Pentagon that had a provision allowing them to use that money to pay for the war. The White House threatened you and you collapsed. I know we need more Democrats, but I wish the Democrats we had would do more–all future funding needs to be tied to troop withdrawal, no excuses. It’s not too much to ask, and the American people are on your side

Also, note that Republicans are pointing to a reduction in violence since August. You know what else happened in August? Moqtada Al-Sadr announced a 6-month ceasefire for his Mahdi militia so that they could reorganize and strengthen themselves. Al-Sadr is intent on becoming a power player in Iraq, even if he has to carve out a place for himself by force. That ceasefire is up at the end of February–I wonder what the GOP would say if he decides to resume violence against U.S. troops again. If that were to happen, I think even David Petraeus wouldn’t be able to fix it…

And that’s the news for this evening.

The rumor on the ground is that Rep. Tom Tancredo will be dropping out of the GOP Presidential race tomorrow.  Marc Ambinder has more:

The scuttle is:

Rep. Tom Tancredo will drop out of the presidential race tomorrow and endorse either Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson…. neither of those candidates know who, just yet.

But the scuttle is probably wrong. Tancredo has been critical of all his opponents, and, given his issue’s saliency, he does not need to endorse. His party sounds like him, now, on immigration.

Tancredo is a one-note right-wing extremist–the only reason he’s running is to push the GOP to the far right on immigration.  I’m not sure if he’ll drop out–it makes sense for him to stay in for as long as possible so he can continue pressuring the other candidates. Anyway, it’s so close to the primaries that it makes little sense to drop  out now.

Then again, Tancredo could duck out to avoid a humiliating defeat in the primaries that would hurt his political future. He could parlay his Presidential run into a future candidacy–former GOP presidential candidate Jim Gilmore, for instance, is running for Senate in Virginia.  This would make sense, considering that it’s rumored Tancredo is hoping to challenge Sen. Ken Salazar in 2010.  Quitting now would give him a relatively high profile, a decent enough fundraising base and devoted  (though not large) following, all of which could be of use to him in the future.

We’ll have to see what happens.  His exit won’t really affect the dynamics of the GOP primary, but if the rumor’s true then I doubt this will be the last we’ll see of Tom Tancredo.

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.

Unsurprising news from Think Progress:

Tomorrow, Univision will be hosting a GOP presidential debate at 7 PM EST. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) is boycotting the event, and yesterday put out a statement criticizing the other candidates for attending:

“It is the law that to become a naturalized citizen of this country you must have knowledge and understanding of English, including a basic ability to read, write, and speak the language,” Tancredo said, in a press release e-mailed by his campaign to reporters. “So what may I ask are our presidential candidates doing participating in a Spanish speaking debate? Pandering comes to mind.”

“America has been a melting pot of people from all over the world but it can not survive as a nation if our immigrants do not assimilate. A common language is essential to that goal. Bilingualism is a great asset for any individual but it has perilous consequences for a nation. As such, a Spanish debate has no place in a presidential campaign.“

Tancredo’s thinly-veiled scorn for immigrants–an attitude held by much of the Republican Party–is both bad policy and bad politics. Hispanics are the fastest-growing group in the U.S., particularly in key states such as Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.  In future years, the Hispanic populations of those states will decide their elections.

And Tancredo’s backwardness is good for the Democratic Party–between 2004 and 2006, our share of the Hispanic vote jumped between 10%-15%.  Hispanic voters are crucial to our govening majority, and they will continue to play a role in Democratic politics for a long, long time.

So, whenever Tancredo opens his mouth, he shoots the Republican Party in the foot.  (Though, I have to give him some credit–he was the only Republican one to show up to the NAACP’s Presidential Debate. Go figure.)

Yahoo News reports on several days of rioting in France:

Riot police deployed late Tuesday across a north Paris suburb bracing for a possible repeat of youth riots that have left 120 police injured, as the government vowed zero tolerance for the “criminals” behind the violence.

For two nights running, young men have hurled petrol bombs and bricks at police, torching cars and buildings in the town of Villiers le Bel, where on Sunday two teenagers were killed in a motorbike collision with a police car.

[...]

Two nights of violence have left five buildings damaged by fire in Villiers, just north of Paris, including a tax office, a supermarket, a library and a nursery school, as well as 63 cars. Fifteen people have been arrested.

This is the event that sparked the immediate violence:

An initial investigation appeared to confirm the police version of Sunday’s incident, according to which the two teenagers — aged 15 and 16, neither wearing a crash helmet — were riding a motorbike that careered into their car.

But relatives of the two youths and some other local people appeared convinced that the police had caused the accident and fled the scene without treating the victims.

But these riots–like the 2005 riots– have a much deeper root:

Police and politicians say the French suburbs remain a “tinderbox” two years after the 2005 riots, which exposed France’s failure to integrate its large black and Arab population, the children and grandchildren of immigrants from its African colonies.

“This is no place for human beings to live,” said local resident Boniface Gabo, pointing up at his grimy tower block. “Make no mistake, every hundred kids who grow up here are a hundred lost kids.”

France has incredibly backwards immigration laws–unlike the United States, people who are born in France are not automatically citizens unless their parents are citizens.  Thus, there are a lot of people who were born and raised in France yet are considered illegal immigrants because their parents or grandparents were illegal immigrants.  There is an entire generation of second-class citizens who are as French as anyone else in the country, but who are legally barred from taking part in the only society they’ve ever known.

This isn’t just a French problem–much of Europe has issues with immigration and racism that aren’t being dealt with.  Immigrants are becoming vital to the economies of much of Europe–particularly considering Europe’s stagnant or declining birth rates–yet there is significant resistance to allowing those immigrants to integrate into society.  The amount of racism towards Arabs, North Africans and Muslims is absolutely staggering, yet countries continue to elect anti-immigrant zealots like Nicholas Sarkozy and the Swiss People’s Party who are just going to ignore–or exacerbate–the problem.

These is a timely warning to the anti-immigration zealots here in the United States. We have 12 million illegal immigrants in out country who we cannot ignore or throw out–denying them rights, pushing them underground, making them second class citizens, denying them jobs and places to live and a chance to become citizens is only going to make the situation worse.

Yet, I don’t think we’ll suffer the same fate as France–as we’ve seen throughout American history, second-class citizens don’t stay second-class for long–our sense of fairness and justice lead us to treat other humans with the same fairness and dignity each of us would like to enjoy, and it’s only a matter of time until our immigrant population are granted the path to citizenship that their hard work here has earned them.

The headline on CNN: “Republican Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi intends to resign by the end of the year, sources tell CNN.”

Lott is the GOP’s second-highest ranking Senator, after Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. He left the leadership several years ago after making a racially offensive remark at a birthday celebration for the late Strom Thurmond; he climbed his way back up after the GOP’s crippling defeat in 2006.

In terms of replacing him, I’m not sure what Mississippi’s law is on this. But if former MS Attorney General Mike Moore (the most popular Democrat in the state) wanted to go for it, he could certainly give the Republicans a run for their money.

UPDATED: Read the story on MSNBC here.

Who will newly re-elected governor Haley Barbour choose? Right now the name being floated around is Rep. Chip Pickering. And in terms of Lott’s position as Minority Whip, Arizona’s John Kyl supposedly has the departing Senator’s backing.

UPDATE II: More from The Politico.

This may spark a fight in the GOP leadership–even if Lott backs Kyl, Senators John Cornyn and Lamar Alexander (who challenged Lott for the position after th 2006 elections) may turn this into an internal GOP battle. That’s the last thing Senate Republicans need right now–a high-profile leadership battle.

UPDATE III: It’s being reported that Lott’s announcement comes as a surprise, since he appeared to be enjoying his role in the Republican leadership. The current meme being shaped is that he wants to go to K Street to make a fortune as a lobbyist, but if he waits into 2008 he’ll be hamstrung by new Democratic laws aimed at closing the Congressional-lobbyist revolving door.

But here’s some baseless speculation for you: what if this has something to do with it? If Lott’s the man involved, when the story breaks it would hurt the GOP far more to have him as their #2 guy in the Senate than as a K Street lobbyist. Who knows, maybe he cut a deal–resign and the story won’t be made public. Again, this is little more than baseless speculation–there are plenty of prominent Republican Senators out there, and who knows if Flynt is doing more than stirring some muck. But it’s something to think about.

UPDATE IV: Cliff Schecter and a few others had the same thought I did. It’s still baseless speculation, but who knows? At one point, it was baseless speculation that Larry Craig was gay, and then look at what happened.

FINAL UPDATE: A final word from John Aravosis, who I have a lot of respect for.  There is nothing out there to indicate that Lott is resigning for any other reason than the one he’s giving.  If something else comes up, I’ll certainly post on it, but for now it’s time to leave this one in the category of “baseless speculation” and move on.

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.

There is a ridiculous Op-Ed from a Jena reporter circling on the right-wing blogs, supposedly “debunking” the Jena 6 controversy. Naturally, it’s filled with incorrect assumptions, misleading statements and downright lies. dnA at Too Sense does a great job tearing the article apart here. It’s quite telling that the only time the right wing pays attention to the travesty in Jena is to “debunk” the egregious racial nature of the controversy.

I’ve often heard conservatives describe themselves as “colorblind, ” but I’ve never bought that description. There is still a lot of racism here in America, and it’s a significant problem that demands our attention. Calling yourself colorblind is a convenient way for you to ignore racial problems in America, to turn your head and pretend that ugly racism doesn’t exist anymore. It’s disturbing, especially from a party that has spent decades engaging in dog whistle politics–sending subtle signals to racist whites in order to pick up their votes.

The Republican Party has a long, shady history of courting racist whites, dating back to Nixon’s southern strategy. The subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) thread of racism is interwoven throughout the fabric of modern conservatism, from incidents like Jena to immigration and even national security.

In the end, their response to Jena isn’t surprising–conservatives clapping their hands over their ears, closing their eyes and assuring themselves that they’re not racist–they’re just “colorblind.”