Paul Abrams: Bill Clinton Claims to Rural W.VA: "I'd rather be here with you". Really? When was his last visit?

According to press reports Bill Clinton is barnstorming through rural West Virginia telling people that everyone else is making fun of them, and him, that only Hillary believes they are just as smart as everyone else, and only Hillary believes that they have as much right to decide who will be President as anyone.

The former President also said that he would prefer spending his time with people like them than the "other" types who "don't need a President".

Really?

Now, I may be completely wrong about this, and, for all I know, the Clintons weekend in places like Ripley and Madison West Virginia (where these comments were delivered), but I would wager that neither Bill nor Hillary nor Chelsea have been to any of these small towns in West Virginia since Bill Clinton left office.

The Clinton Foundation has done great works for HIV victims, and he and Bush Sr spearheaded fundraising for Tsunami relief. He received billions in pledges to combat global warming. All awesome achievements...but, all also worthy of headlines.

If I were a citizen of Ripley or Madison, or other places down on their luck, and totally ignored by Bush and radical rightwing, and Bill Clinton arrived carrying the message of comaraderie, with the explicit statement that it is among these people, and in their towns, that he would prefer to spend his time, one might be entitled to ask, "where have you been for the last 7 years, Billy-boy Billy boy? Where have you been charming Billy?" Why has Clinton's prodigious energy and attention not focused on us and our plight? Are we not worthy?

After all, Clinton is telling them how much Hillary needs them.

If I were the Obama campaign, I might suggest to these citizens that the candidate treating them like manipulable children, not worthy of the truth, is Hillary Clinton.

Jared Bernstein: The Most Important Piece of Paper in America

I hold in my hand one of the most important pieces of paper in America: Table T08-0071, an analysis of candidate John McCain's tax plan.

OK, it's not really in my hand because I'm typing, but I'm looking at it carefully, and you should too. It is a table constructed by the Tax Policy Center's steely-eyed tax analysts, and it reveals nothing less than McCain's secret plan to diminish the US government beyond recognition. If he gets his way, conservatives will finally be able to say they've achieved the goal set out by Grover Norquist: to get government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

The numbers in the table show the revenue loss to the Federal government from McCain's proposed tax cuts. In the far right corner is the 10-year total: -$5.7 trillion.

People deride the Republican candidate as "McSame," implying a continuation of Bushonomics as well as the president's foreign policy. But from the perspective of domestic policy, it's much worse. Sure, McCain extends the Bush tax cuts but that's the least of it. At $1.7 trillion they amount to less than a third of the damage.

Note also that the big ticket tax cuts-eliminating the alternative minimum tax and lowering the corporate tax-both follow on another Bush tradition of exacerbating market-driven (i.e., pre-tax) inequalities by cutting high-end taxes the most.

As I stresshere , McCain's plans to pay for these tax cuts amount to filling a crater with a teaspoon of sand. Earmarks won't get you there, so he'll have to go after discretionary spending. In fact, he's already suggesting a freeze in such spending, excluding defense, of course. Sound inoffensive until you consider that we're talking about kids' health care, education, child care, training for displaced workers, environmental and labor protections, and dozens more programs that lots of people actually need and care about.

Plus, he can't fill the hole he's dug with cuts in these programs either, which leads you to the inevitable punch line of all this: his target is the entitlements, Social Security and Medicare. Those programs have always been the big enchiladas for the Norquist shock troops and they've never recovered from their Social Security privatization defeat. Well, they're back, incognito.

McCain's top economist, a number cruncher of great integrity named Doug Holtz-Eakin, responds to the Tax Policy's analysis here, and he makes a good point or two, especially regarding the way they score the AMT, but his counterpoints amount to little more than quibbles. In fact, one can't help wonder if Doug, who used to inveigh against supply-side nonsense, has been drawn to the economic dark side. When recently asked about the extent to which these numbers fail to add up, his response was: "I think what [critics] ought to do is remember that the proposals are going to engender economic growth, which is the best thing you can do for near-term budget improvement." That's pure hand waving of the type with which the old Holtz-Eakin had no patience.

This story has yet to catch the fire it should, and hopefully will, once the D's get focused on McCain and his dim vision of government. But the point born of these numbers is as simple as it is compelling:

For seven long years, we've tried entrusting our government to those who discredit it, defund it, and fundamentally disbelieve in its role, except when they seek a lucrative contract or a bailout. We gone down the road-and it is a crumbling road, with potholes and failing bridges -- where the solution to every problem is a tax cut, where critical agencies are staffed with cronies at best and opposition lobbyists at worst, where secrecy trumps transparency and cynicism rules, where budget resources are never available for expanding children's health care, but always there for war.

Table T08-0071 is a road map to taking us far, far deeper into this morass. We must not go there.

A. Siegel: Catastrophe to Celebration

Not everything is the Bush White House's fault.

Not everything.

In this case, not fully their fault, but this contrast is too striking to go without comment.

Laura Bush on Cyclone Nagris and ...

Last week, the White House sent Laura Bush out to speak on the disastrous cyclone in Myanmar. She gave a prepared statement. And, then she took questions. And, the press had their chance to ask questions. Some were quite serious, quite on target.

But, toward the end the questions strayed to issues closer to Laura's heart and the tone shifted from serious to jocular.

MSNBC, however, took a little time to pick up the shift of subject as you can see here at Huffington Post. One side of the screen, disaster scenes from Myanmar/Burma, the other a laughing Laura chatting about Jenna's then upcoming wedding.

Sigh ...

Transitioning from Cyclone to Wedding?

It isn't as if the White House press office has the ability to control questions. No, this White House never does anything to control the discussion in the press conferences. Never ...

Or, that Laura could have suggested something from the podium along these lines: "Why don't we focus our attention on the tragic situation in Myanmar?" No, the person at the podium has no ability to control the conversation, to keep the discussion on subject. It isn't as if Laura had years of time as a Governor's wife and some time under her belt as First Lady. Dominating a press conference is simply not something that might be expected of her.

No, of course, that would have been impossible.

Actually, in fact, Laura's opening comments invited the questioning.
Thank you all very much for giving me a chance to speak. I'm going to leave tomorrow for Crawford, for Jenna's wedding, and I wanted to be able to make a statement about Burma before I left.
Burma, Jenna's wedding.

Jenna's wedding, Burma.

What a perfect fit.

It wasn't the media that opened the door.

And, thus, a press conference that opened with a serious (even if seriously flawed, see below) statement on a catastrophe with 10,000s of dead ended with laughing chatter and joking about Jenna Bush's wedding.

And, back to that flawed statement

Now, Laura has been criticized (for example here at DKOS, here at Think Progress, here, and ...) for words in the prepared statement due to the hypocrisy of these words coming from the Administration that handled Hurricane Katrina so flawlessly.
It's troubling that many of the Burmese people learned of this impending disaster only when foreign outlets -- such as Radio Free Asia and Voice of America -- sounded the alarm. Although they were aware of the threat, Burma's state-run media failed to issue a timely warning to citizens in the storm's path.
Yes, this is troubling and tragic.

But the hubris. Are there other governments, perhaps a little closer to home, that failed to act appropriately in the face of a serious weather threat?
The response to the cyclone is just the most recent example of the junta's failure to meet its people's basic needs.
Think September 2005 with the words: "The response to the [hurricane] is just the most recent example of the [Administration's] failure to meet its people's basic needs." Would that have sounded legitimate?
The regime has dismantled systems of agriculture, education and health care.
Has America's "systems of agriculture, education and health care" strengthened in the past seven years? FYI -- not by any reasonable set of metrics ...

In her questions and answers, Laura Bush stated this:
But I think in front of their own people and in front of the world, if they don't accept aid from the United States and from all the rest of the international community that wants to help the people of Burma, that that is just another way that the military regime looks so cut off and so unaware of what the real needs of their people are.
Does anyone want to remind her that the U.S. government was quite slow in accepting aid from the international community post Katrina and that there were many aid offers that were never accepted? Perhaps it might have merited notice that 59 of 77 offers of aid went unaccepted and, in many cases, even unanswered.

Of course, the White House "press corps" left her comments and the stark contrast with the Bush-Cheney Administration's record unchallenged.

And, traditional (entertainment) media reporting seen by most Americans similarly left this unremarked.

Truth be told, there are many things that Laura said that I agree with about the Myanmar regime's obstinence in the face of massive human tragedy and suffering, but the hubris of someone from this White House criticizing another nation's response to a hurricane/cyclone ...

And, the indelicate (tasteless ... heartless ...) transition from speaking of such a deadly tragedy to the laughing and giggling over a wedding ...

Another stain on America's image?

NOTE: Cyclone Nagris has killed 10,000s (perhaps more that 100,000) and devastated a large swath of the country. There are many ways to provide assistance, such as through Relief Web or through the Burmese labor unions.

And, there are many causes and drivers to this disaster. From nature to humanity. For example, the devastation of Burma's / Myanmar's mangrove groves over the years enable the cyclone to cause far more devastation than if this natural protective belt had remained intact.

And, let us remember that the Burmese/Myanmar government is the ones standing in the way of serious amounts of international aid arriving to help their endangered citizens. It seems that to call their actions (and inaction) crimes against humanity would not exaggerate the case.

Ben Cohen: Time Magazine Advocates invading Burma

For Time magazine's World Editor Romesh Ratnesar, two failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq aren't enough to dissuade him from invading another country. In his ridiculous, irresponsible and downright idiotic article Is It Time to Invade Burma? Ratnesar argues the U.S military should take out the Burmese government for its incompetent handling of the humanitarian disaster.

The military junta in Burma is a disgusting government guilty of vicious crimes against its own people. No one wants to see them continue in power, and everything should be done to help the Burmese rid themselves of the regime.

But invading them unilaterally is not only illegal, but criminally stupid.

"The trouble is that the Burmese haven't shown the ability or willingness to deploy the kind of assets needed to deal with a calamity of this scale," writes Ratnesar. "And the longer Burma resists offers of help, the more likely it is that the disaster will devolve beyond anyone's control."

"That's why it's time to consider a more serious option: invading Burma."

Joining the list of imperialist geniuses that got us into Iraq, Ratnesar's inexplicable faith in the U.S government's ability to nation build defies rational belief.

"As the response to the 2004 tsunami proved, the world's capacity for mercy is limitless. But we still haven't figured out when to give war a chance," he writes.

We still haven't figured out when to give war a chance? Really? Where has Ratnesar been for the last 5 years? War is about the only thing we have given a chance, and it isn't exactly going well. Taking a hammer to every international problem has not only bankrupted America, but destroyed its image around the world. Illegally invading another sovereign nation, no matter how abhorrent it is, would not do much to improve it.

The fact is, invading countries mean people, including Americans, will die. The Burmese government won't sit back quietly while foreign troops take over their country, and neither will the people. As much as they hate their government, they will not take kindly to an American 'liberation,' and the blow back would likely be vicious.

While Ratnesar's intentions may be noble, his cavalier assertion that war is the answer is symptomatic of the arrogance that has led to the hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.

International law exists for good reason: To protect the weak from the powerful. Unilateral and preemptive aggression is illegal, with a nation's sovereignty being paramount. This particular facet of the U.N charter was written in specific response to Hitler's aggression throughout Europe, and they apply to everyone, including us. The Burmese government may be disgusting, but that does not trump international law, and we have no right to invade.

Ratnesar has an impressive resume of work, having reported from Iraq, Israel, the Hague and the Persian Gulf. Given his international perspective, it seems bizarre he would advocate such blatant disregard for international law. The situation in Burma is dire, and constructive thinking is needed from the international community on how to best aid the people suffering. Regime change and war should be the last thing on anyones mind, and Ratnesar's article is irresponsible to say the least.

Using his logic, if a countries incapability to handle a disaster was grounds for an invasion, China should have launched a war on the Bush government for the humanitarian disaster it would not take seriously in New Orleans. For that matter, perhaps China should have also invaded after the U.S failed to avert massive disaster in Iraq.

There is no record of Ratnesar advocating these positions, most likely because they are ridiculous.

And so too is his.

Huffpollstrology: Candidates' Horoscopes, Polls And More For May 12

Polls have come to dominate the media's horse race coverage of political campaigns. Pundits and reporters constantly use them to tell us who's hot and who's not -- but skip over the fact that plummeting response rates and variables like undecided voters and margins of error and often render these polls useless as anything other than lightweight diversions on par with horoscopes and political betting lines. Our HuffPollstrology chart helps keep you up to date on the latest poll results, along with the latest horoscope predictions, and the latest online political betting lines - and will hopefully help the polling junkies in the media keep polls in the proper perspective.

(National)

Awaiting someone's reaction to a recently-sent missive could put you in anxious mode. This is possibly not the only relationship that could cause you stress. The purchase of an item, or arrangements for insurance of something you already own, is likely to require trust on both sides. You might not be sure that someone will do as they promise. Your on-going partnership with a Taurean friend could come under tension - most probably caused by the distance between you.

(National)

There's a real danger that you could go over the top. Sure, you might want to reward someone for their efforts. However, it might not be necessary to break the bank in the process. Someone born under one of the Earth signs (Taurus, Virgo or Capricorn) may have something to celebrate. They might also want you consider making a trip with them.

A decision may have been reached, yet you may still need to check that your exposure to risk is minimal. Only then might you be happy to celebrate. There IS likely to be good news though. It might even seem you've been rescued by angels when someone (probably an Aquarius) points out the obvious, makes everyone laugh and paves the way to explore an idea that really is 'at the cutting edge'.

You will find little comfort in your emotions today, dear Leo. You may want to simply stick to business. Concentrate on getting things done in your regular routine. Create a plan and stick to it. This is not a day to deviate from the norm, nor is it a time in which you will find sympathy from others. Stick close to home and take care of your personal business. Time is precious, so don't waste it.

Try not to be smothering today, dear Virgo. You may want to seek comfort in the company of others, but you may find that this action only produces grouchiness on the part of all parties involved. Curb your tendency to find fault in the ones you love. Your best bet is to focus your energy on tasks you've had on the back burner for quite some time. Tackle projects that need special attention and the most discipline.

It may be hard for you to feel connected to anyone today, dear Scorpio. You are probably better off just keeping to yourself. If you are feeling sad or depressed, it is best to work through these feelings on your own. Other people are not apt to be too sympathetic to your situation. You are better off sticking to your work in order to keep the demons out of your head.

Sources:

Democratic Nomination Poll: Gallup Daily Tracking Poll

The Democratic nomination results are based on combined data from May 8-10, 2008. For results based on this sample of 1,285 Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

General Election Poll: Gallup Daily Tracking Poll

The general election results are based on combined data from May 6-10, 2008. For results based on this sample of 4,355 registered voters, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points.

Horoscopes: horoscopes.co.uk and astrology.msn.com

Weather: Weather.com

Betting Lines: Intrade Prediction Markets

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: ID-Less in Indiana

In 2005, Indiana passed a law requiring all citizens to show a photo ID before being allowed to vote. The law was enacted on a strict party line; every Republican in the state legislature voted in favor, and every Democrat voted against. The law was sharply criticized for responding to a non-existent problem -- there is not a single example in Indiana history of in-person voter impersonation -- and for aiming to suppress poor and minority voter turnout. Poor and minority (i.e. Democratic) voters, not surprisingly, are much less likely to have valid photo IDs than wealthy and white (i.e. Republican) voters.

Despite these problems, the Supreme Court recently held that the law is constitutional. The Court downplayed the burden imposed by the law on people lacking IDs, asserting that "the inconvenience of making a trip to the DMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote." The Court added that it simply "d[id] not know the magnitude of the impact [the law] will have on indigent voters in Indiana."

Last week, Indiana held its first statewide election since the voter ID law was enacted: the Democratic Party presidential primary. And based on the primary's results, it is possible to conclude, at least preliminarily, that the "magnitude of the [law's] impact" is substantial -- and thus that the Supreme Court was wrong to uphold it.

Consider Marion and Lake Counties. They are Indiana's two most populous counties (home, respectively, to Indianapolis and Gary) and the stronghold of the state's Democratic Party. They are also substantially poorer and blacker than the rest of the state. In 2004, Marion County accounted for 16.7% of all the votes cast in Indiana for Sen. John Kerry, and Lake County accounted for 11.8%. What did these numbers look like in the 2008 Democratic primary? Surely the counties' poor and minority voters turned out in higher proportions to support Sen. Barack Obama?

Actually, no. Marion County accounted for just 14.9% of the votes cast in the primary (a decline of 11 percent). And Lake County, despite Gary Mayor Rudy Clay's boasts of unprecedented turnout, accounted for just 11.8% of the votes (a decline of almost 14 percent). In other words, relative turnout in Indiana's poorest and blackest counties declined significantly between 2004 and 2008 -- even though the most appealing black politician in memory was on the 2008 ballot.

It is not possible, of course, to attribute all the blame for the relative turnout decline on the new voter ID law. Sen. Hillary Clinton zealously rallied her supporters, who were concentrated outside Indiana's big cities. Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos, which called for Republicans to cross over and vote for Sen. Clinton, may have been responsible for some of the turnout boost in Indiana's suburban and rural counties. And 2004-2008 comparisons are tricky since the 2004 statistics are from the general election while the 2008 numbers are from a primary.

Still, it seems likely that a good number of Marion and Lake County voters who otherwise would have voted for Sen. Obama stayed home because they lacked photo IDs. It is difficult to imagine why else relative turnout in these counties would have declined in an election cycle that has been characterized by spikes of interest in Democratic strongholds. (Relative turnout in Philadelphia, for example, was up in 2008 compared to 2004.) It is thus plausible that Sen. Clinton owes her razor-thin victory in the Indiana primary to the state's new voter ID law (as well as to the Supreme Court, which upheld it). A law intended to benefit Republicans may instead have won the election for the Democrat running the more Republican-style campaign.

Dan Sweeney: Moral Relativism and the Right

One of the more popular phrases used by the Right to describe the Left is "moral relativists."

"Good golly, Chip, these liberals have no sense of good and evil. They have no appreciation for the fact that there is Real Evil in the world, and that stems from their moral relativism! They accept that a bad deed is not quite so bad in certain instances. But we know that evil is always evil, right, Chip?"

"Right you are, Skip. Some things are always evil. Like hating freedom."

(For some reason, I always picture far-right mouthbreathers having cute nicknames for each other, like Skippy or Chip. I blame this prejudice on both Scooter Libby and our president's weird quirk of assigning nicknames to everything and everyone: Brownie, Guru, and the ever-popular Turd-blossom. It seems he's given everything a nickname but the White House Rose Garden. ... Wait, has he nicknamed that too? Maybe he calls it "Roselita" or something. Jesus ... Anyway, enough of the tangent. I believe the Far Right all have goofy nicknames. Enough said.)

But in this case, with all apologies to the title of Arianna Huffington's new book, the Right is right. For the most part, we on the Left side of the political divide -- along with most thoughtful types -- recognize that morality is a mushy subject. Stealing a loaf of bread to feed one's family is not the same thing as, say, draining a pension fund and stealing millions from hapless workers who will then have to steal bread to feed their families.

But the interesting part about the moral relativism of the Left is that, out there on the edge, where man's inhumanity to man becomes truly horrific, we suddenly throw moral relativism out the window and recognize that certain actions are always wrong, regardless of the reasons why. Rape is always wrong. Child molestation is always wrong. And, yes, torture is always wrong.

When it comes to moral relativism, the difference between the Right and the Left seems not one of who practices the philosophy and who doesn't, but in which areas we are willing to concede that, among all the stark black and whites, there is room for shades of gray.

The moral relativism of the Right is found in its specious arguments for torturing the bejesus out of jumpsuit-clad detainees at Guantanamo, many of whom are as deserving of being locked up as anyone reading this. Take, for example, the case of al-Jazeera cameraman Sami al-Hajj, who was released from the American internment camp in Cuba last week after six years. He was never charged with a crime and, when captured by Pakistani intelligence officers in Afghanistan, he carried a work visa and was on assignment in the oft-war-torn country.

And yet, back when the Republican presidential primary was still sexy, the contenders were falling all over themselves to assure potential voters how far they would go in maiming Guantanamo detainees. Moral relativists like Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani fell all over themselves to see who could win the requisite pro-torture voting bloc.

Now that it's over, and John McCain is the man, the Right has found perhaps its most shameful flunky for its pro-torture message. The coming debate between McCain and Barack Obama (I like Hillary too, but let's be real here.) will be a debate about the future of our country. The Right fears that an Obama administration would "cut and run," "give comfort to our enemies," or "insert focus-group-tested slogan here." It fears that an Obama administration would mean the destruction of America, or at least that's what it screams to make people afraid enough to vote against their own best interests. But America is, of course, too strong for that. The only way America will ever be destroyed is if we destroy ourselves; if we destroy what America means. And tossing out habeas corpus, the Constitution and basic human rights should accomplish that destruction nicely.

Which is why I ask of the moral relativists of the Right: Why do you hate America?

Frank Schaeffer: Arianna Huffington is Correct: McCain Has Changed

When I add my voice to Arianna Huffington's to say that Senator McCain has changed -- for the worse -- my perspective isn't that of your traditional lefty making some sort of knee-jerk response against just anyone running as a Republican candidate. I went for to bat for McCain in 2000 (in my small way) and later McCain was kind enough to write a glowing endorsement of one of my books on the military. While it was a dual between McCain and Romney I even contributed to McCain's 2008 presidential run. This was at the same time as I was also contributing to Obama's campaign. Talk about being conflicted!

I had been out of the right-wing Evangelical fundamentalist subculture for more than 20 years so I was surprised when Religious Right leader Gary Bauer called me. This was in the heat of the 2000 election. Gary had a favor to ask.

"Frank, I know we haven't talked for many years but will you help me stop George W. Bush from winning the Republican nomination? There are still a lot of evangelicals out there who remember your dad and you from your pro-life work in the seventies and I think the Schaeffer name could help stop the Bush/Rove smear machine from taking McCain down."

Gary had heard that I was a McCain fan. But I had to think long and hard before I agreed to argue for McCain and against Bush on various radio shows, including such right wing staples as Ollie North's program and on a dozen or so big Christian stations. The idea of having to relive my past activism even briefly, was abhorrent. When I'd left the evangelical movement, let alone the hard right, I'd felt as if I'd escaped a living death, the death of a thousand cuts by terminal stupidity and meanness.

I agreed to go on shows Gary booked because I wanted W to lose even more than I wanted McCain to win. You see my family knew the Bush tribe personally, given that my dad had been a welcome evangelical leader in top Republican circles for many years. And everyone close to the Bush family knew that W was the least fit member of that dynasty to elect for dog catcher, let alone president.

A large station in Los Angeles organized a debate between Bush-booster Ralph Reed and me. When Ralph found out who his opponent was going to be he backed out. According to the producer; "Ralph says that he won't debate you. He said he'll debate anybody but you."

I knew why Ralph didn't want to go up against me. In his circles the Schaeffer name was still huge. Reed, Robertson, Dobson, et al. could not have existed (as Republican activists) combining theology and militant (even anti-American) politics without my dad's work paving the way for them. And back in the day I'd been a pretty big deal on the fundamentalist circuit too.

I had been off the "circuit" for years but was still remembered as my father -- evangelist Francis Schaeffer's - sidekick. In the mid eighties I'd fled the religious side of evangelicalism, as well as the political side. I made four terrible Hollywood movies then wrote novels that were well received and started a new life. Blessedly, I fell off the evangelical radar screen.

Then in 2006 I wrote several opinion pieces supporting James Webb against the same Republican attack machine that had tried to take down McCain in 2000. The Rove slime apparatus had called McCain the father of an illegitimate black child. This time Rove and Co. were calling Webb a "pornographer" because of some sexually explicit passages in a few of his Vietnam novels.

I was so disgusted that I re-registered as an independent voter and said so in an op-ed in the Dallas Morning News. Soon after that my anti-Religious Right memoir Crazy for God was published.

My old buddies in the Religious Right (most of whom had long since forgotten I existed) took note and began attacking me. (Depending on which right wing blogs you read these days, I'm now a "heretic," have broken various biblical commandments about "honoring" your parents, never was a "real Christian" and even the fact that my son was a Marine and fought in Bush's wars, still gives me "no right to criticize the President" for his misbegotten war etc., etc.)

I feel genuinely sad observing that McCain is now the most dangerous man in America. He is. He has becomes the enemy of our future.

Here's why:

Both Republicans and Democrats have their versions of a lunatic fringe. The Democrats include people who think they're making a contribution to the country by picketing recruiters' offices in Berkeley or rooting for total pacifism -- whatever. There are plenty of wacky left-wingers running around who don't do much for the Democrats' image with mainstream America but ... the wacky left does not control the heart of the Democratic Party, as the tremendous success of the eminently sane, balanced and thoughtful Senator Obama proves.

The problem is that you can't run for president as a Republican these days without appeasing the insanely bellicose, Republican fringe. As such McCain has had to endorse Bush's war and suck up to the most vile elements to his right.

Today McCain is a man who's thinking has also been so twisted by his quest for power in the shadow of the Republican's "base" and their opposition to him over the years, that he has lied about his real feelings about Bush's Iraq war. McCain knows that we should never have gone to war. He knows his vote for the war was a terrible mistake, He knows that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we opened the door. He knows we're losing in Afghanistan because we're in Iraq. He knows Bush is literally a fool. (He has said so to plenty of people I know well personally.) But McCain wants to be president enough to lie about all this.

Now that McCain has adjusted his thinking to continue (and praise) the Bush policies he can't turn back. He hasn't exactly made a bargain with the devil, more like a pact with the village idiot.

As Bush's new lickspittle McCain is now so bent on eternal war, and has gone so far in betraying himself to support Bush, that he's even been agitating against Senator James Webb's new GI Bill, which would (at long last!) improve college benefits for soldiers. The Pentagon says that the new bill is too generous, and would entice young men and women to go to college instead of serving for repeated tours of combat. (These benefits would include McCain's Marine son, but then again if you've got a wife with 100 million dollars who needs college benefits for your military son?)

McCain has also climbed into bed with the Ralph Reed-type scum he once called "agents of intolerance" and who smeared him not only in 2000, but worked this year to defeat him while supporting Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. The only question is: has McCain changed his mind? Does he really believe in the Religious Right's BS, or is he just lying for convenience sake? Either way, forget the old "straight talk maverick."

A vote for McCain is a vote against a viable Republican Party. It's a vote for the poisonous lunatic fringe that's taken over the heart of the Republican Party and driven people like Arianna Huffington and me, and tens of thousands others, out. A vote for McCain is a vote to kill American service men and women, deprive those that survive our failed imperial conquest of benefits and condemn the rest of us to terrorist attacks as Afghanistan--where the real war on terror is--is lost due to our foolish involvement in Iraq.

As Huffington points out in Right is Wrong, the Republican fringe includes an unholy alliance of warmonger neoconservatives, evangelical fundamentalist leaders, and just plain old ignorant haters. This fringe has made the Republican Party into a reactionary, know-nothing habitat for racists, pro-torture sadists, advocates of eternal war and the instigators of a skyrocketing debt for the sake of-and caused by-failed imperial "glory."

McCain's base is putrid. Worse; it's stupid. And the rot has spread to the man trying to appease and "lead" it. But leadership means elevating people, not pandering. And that is what McCain has become: the panderer in chief.

Our job -- whatever party we are in -- is to stop McCain. W can't afford another 4 years of Bush. We need a president, not a panderer. It is also the biggest favor we can do for the Republican Party.

The Republicans need a time out. They need to purge their party of the idiots who gave us Bush II, not be ruled by them once again. I'm not a Republican any more, but if I were I'd be praying for defeat this year for the good of the party, for the good of America. As it is, I thank God that in Senator Obama we have the most inspiring and thoughtful candidate to run for president in my lifetime.

Frank Schaeffer is a writer and author of "CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back"

Clinton spends Mother's Day campaigning in W.Va. (AP)

AP - Hillary Rodham Clinton toured the birthplace of Mother's Day in rural West Virginia, offering Democrats a subtle reminder Sunday that her fading candidacy remains strong among women and blue-collar, white voters.

Norman MacAfee: The Presidency of Al Gore, 2001-2009

[Note: Continually thinking about how disastrous the last seven years have been, I did some imagining and research on what the world would be like if Al Gore had become president in 2001. Such a process is really about how important it is to elect the right president. I asked friends and acquaintances for their ideas, I read books by and about Gore, and I watched again his September 2000 interview with Oprah Winfrey, where I learned about his favorite book and movie and his art teacher. Here are some of my findings.]

The Presidency of Al Gore, 2001-2009

On January 20, 2001, Al Gore, the candidate who won the most votes, becomes the 43rd president of the United States.

President Gore follows up on the many urgent warnings from the intelligence agencies that Osama Bin Laden is determined to strike in the United States. The 9/11 planners are caught, and their plots are aborted.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban warns that it will destroy the two giant 1,500-year-old statues of the Buddha in the Bamiyan Valley. Much of the world sees these serene figures as symbols of wisdom beyond time, but they offend conservative Muslims. Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke talks with the Pakistani foreign minister, who reminds him that Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world and suggests that if aid to the poor there is increased, the Buddhas will be spared. Gore calls the American Buddhist actor Richard Gere, who immediately raises $50 million for the Afghani poor, and the Gore administration promises $5 billion in direct aid over the next five years. The Taliban agrees to preserve the statues.

Gore's favorite film, Local Hero, the Scots eco-comedy, becomes a best-selling DVD. The film is about how ancient values of subsistence, closeness to nature, and community defeat the rapacious forces of the oil industry. People like quoting the old Scot who puts the kibosh on the oilmen: "The business left, but the beach is still here."

Republicans are squawking that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is a threat to the safety of the country, that he has weapons of mass destruction. Gore asks the United Nations to send its weapons inspectors back into Iraq, and after six months of searching, they find none. Saddam is in what Eliot Weinberger calls "the 'autumn of the patriarch' mode: holed up in his palaces writing his trashy novels, and oblivious to the details of government." Gore brokers a deal in which Saddam's novels are translated into English and published and he agrees to slowly loosen up some of the restrictions on the Kurds and Shias and bring them into the government.

In 1998, as vice president, Gore proposed a NASA satellite, Triana, to provide, from a distance of 930,000 miles, a continuous view of the sunlit side of the earth. Triana would measure global warming by measuring how much sunlight is reflected and emitted from the earth and would monitor weather systems. Triana is built and launched in February 2003. In late 2004, it sends back images of the beginnings of a great tsunami that might have killed hundreds of thousands if it had gone undetected in its early stages. But Triana's continual data feed allows people to be warned to flee to higher ground, and only a few dozen perish.

The president's favorite book, Stendahl's The Red and the Black, becomes a bestseller. People like quoting the book's young hero, Julien Sorel: "So there, this is what these rich people are like. First they humiliate you, then they think they can make it up to you by monkey business!"

Recognizing that nothing good can come from the continuing Israeli-Palestinian standoff, Gore sends Holbrooke and Vice President Joe Lieberman to broker a peace. In May the two sides sign a peace accord, in which Israel agrees to go back to the 1967 boundaries, the Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist, and both sides renounce violence. The Republic of Palestine is founded in 2002.

President Gore has a nightmare: He becomes president on January 20, 2001, but the next day he is incapacitated, and Lieberman becomes president. In the spirit of the close election, Lieberman appoints George W. Bush as vice president on January 22. The next day Lieberman is incapacitated, and Bush becomes president and appoints Dick Cheney his vice president. The Bush-Cheney presidency starts January 23, not January 20. Immediately Bush begins abrogating treaties of long standing that kept the world at peace. Terrorists destroy the World Trade Center on September 14, 2001. Bush enacts draconian laws that make America a police state. People constantly refer to "9/14" as the day that changed everything. President Gore wakes up in his bed in the White House in a cold sweat, the dream disappearing from his conscious mind but the numbers 9 and 14 puzzling and haunting him at odd moments for the rest of his days.

As vice president, Gore signed the Kyoto Accord on Climate Change in 1998, but there were not enough votes to ratify it in the Congress, and there still are not. President Gore, however, is able to implement most elements of the treaty by executive order. He begins a process of education about global warming and publishes a book on the subject. He sponsors twenty-four hours of concerts with rock and pop stars, Live Earth, on every continent, and broadcast on television, radio, and the Web to raise awareness about climate change and global warming. A third of the planet's population watches and hears the concerts and has a pretty good time in the process. Soon every nation has ratified Kyoto, and the climate crisis begins to ebb. The temperatures of the oceans stop rising, and thus the severity of hurricanes stops increasing.

Early in 2001, acting on urgent warnings from the Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA, the president directs that the New Orleans levees be reinforced and where necessary rebuilt, and the nearby wetlands protected and expanded. When hurricane Katrina strikes in August 2005, the wetlands absorb much of the flooding, the reinforced levees hold, and New Orleans suffers only minor damage.

People start reading Gore's favorite philosophers, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Edmund Husserl, and Reinhold Niebuhr. They quote passages like this from Merleau: "We struggle with dream figures and our blows fall on living faces." And this from Niebuhr: "The sin of man arises from his effort to establish his own security; and the sin of the false prophet lies in the effort to include this false security within the ultimate security of faith. The false security to which all men are tempted is the security of power. The primary insecurity of human life arises from its weakness and finiteness."

The United States and the nations of the former Soviet Union agree to destroy the nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons built up during the Cold War. The president halts and junks the Star Wars strategic defense initiative boondoggle. Every nation signs a treaty to begin eliminating their weapons of mass destruction. The military-industrial complex must now make a transition. Converting the country, and the world, to alternative energy sources other than fossil fuel and nuclear becomes a new growth industry.

The special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom continues, as does the close relationship between the progressive governments of Tony Blair and Al Gore, begun under Bill Clinton. As planned, Blair carries through the New Labour vision of the New Jerusalem, with higher quality of life and better public services, similar to those in France. In 2008, he is re-elected for an unprecedented fourth term.

President Clinton had twice shaken hands with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, and now President Gore sends Holbrooke to Caracas to draft a treaty of cooperation with Chávez. Gore arrives in the Venezuelan capital, where he and Chavez sign the treaty. Later, they talk about their mutual love of Victor Hugo's great novel of the dispossessed, Les Misérables. Chávez tells Gore that he was named for its author. They quote from memory lines from the great book. Gore remembers this, about Jean Valjean: "Then he asked himself if it was not a serious thing that he, a workman, could not have found work and that he, an industrious man, should have been without bread." Chávez responds with what Jean Valjean's savior, the Bishop of Digne, says: "Jean Valjean, my brother, you belong no longer to evil, but to good. It is your soul I am buying for you." Gore replies with this about the inspector who hunts Valjean: "Javert was always in character, without a wrinkle in his duty or his uniform, methodical with villains, rigid with his coat buttons." Chávez says this about Fantine: "What is this story of Fantine about? It is about society buying a slave. From whom? From misery. From hunger, from cold, fron loneliness, from desertion, from privation. Melancholy barter. A soul for a piece of bread."

Gore and Howard Dean, his Health and Human Services Secretary, begin having regular discussions with Canada's Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, about that country's single-payer health care system. Gore plans to introduce universal health care in the United States step by step. His health care bill, narrowly passed in 2001, covers all those age eighteen and under by 2004, and everyone else by 2007.

The president invites to the White House the person who had the most influence on him, his high school art teacher. The Smithsonian exhibits some of Gore's paintings.

By a few votes in each house, Congress passes Gore's tax cuts for middle- and lower-income people. But also by a few votes in each house, the Congress passes tax cuts for the rich and super-rich, which Gore vetoes. The rich and super-rich continue paying their same rate. Soon, the gap between rich and poor, which has been increasing since the Reagan administration began in 1981, begins decreasing.

The undamming of rivers, begun seriously under Clinton/Gore, continues, and the ancient vibrant river life of salmon, shad, freshwater dolphin, and manatee returns.

U.S. Army Specialist Casey Sheehan becomes a Chaplain's Assistant. In 2005, his tour of duty up, he returns to California to visit his mother, Cindy.

A bird alights on a Bamiyan Buddha.

The polar bears are swimming north and flourishing.

New Clinton Team Motivation: Stick It To Naysayers

There's a motivational shift afoot in Hillary nation.

The legions of Hillary Rodham Clinton backers still investing their cash, energy and emotion into her faltering bid for the Democratic presidential nomination seem driven not by the reasonable expectation that she can beat Barack Obama, but by the emotional desire to see her through to the end of voting and stick it to those who have already written her off.

Clinton's campaign is fanning the flames of that backlash -- against the media, against superdelegates who recently backed Obama and against Obama himself. Aides hope to convert the sentiments into protest votes that could deliver landslide victories in West Virginia and Kentucky, Clinton strongholds that are among the next three states to cast ballots.

No matter how big Clinton wins in West Virginia, which votes Tuesday, or Kentucky, which heads to the polls May 20 along with Oregon -- a likely Obama win -- she won't significantly cut into Obama's lead in pledged delegates or popular votes.

Emanuel Says Kennedy Clinton Comments Out Of Line

On a day when it seemed that everybody was beating up on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton -- even "Saturday Night Live" had run a skit making fun of her -- one person came to her defense on Sunday: Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the No. 3 Democrat in the House.

Mr. Emanuel called to assail Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, for remarks he made when asked about the possibility of Senator Barack Obama of Illinois choosing Mrs. Clinton, of New York, as his running-mate.

"I have a lot of respect for Ted Kennedy, but I don't know how the hell he comes off saying that," said Mr. Emanuel, who has ties to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama and has not endorsed in the race. "The gratuitous attack on her is uncalled for and wrong. He is a better senator than that comment reveals."

Michelle Kraus: The Future: Poignant and fraught with opportunity for the Democratic Party

This poignant moment is revolutionary for Democratic politics, if we only step back from the dramas unfolding. It is the story of the valiant fight by the first woman to hold the highest office in this country. And moreover, this is the time for the first African-American candidate to compete with this woman for the highest office and responsibilities. Instead of reveling in this mysterious and marvelous convergence of events, we Democrats are allowing the daytime soap operas to play out across the screens of global television. We are allowing political reporters to wallow in this muck, rather then the miraculous opportunities before us.

Instead of seeing the poignancy of the woman's husband fighting to protect her honor, he is demonized and condemned every time he trips, leading with his heart rather than the brilliance of his mind. And then there's the Reverend Wright polemic for the African-American candidate which unfortunately will not go away, regardless of the candidate's renunciation of his long time religious and spiritual mentor. Poignant and terribly unfortunate this event is fodder for the Republican attack machines against this candidate.

Yet somehow all of this must be put aside as we reach beyond and step out of the muck, and dramas which are a very real distraction for winning this election, November 2008. Repeat this often when getting sucked back into the daytime soaps that have become American political television reporting.

We could win this race. It is much bigger than this woman and this man. If all of this is put aside, we will be able to hear and listen to the whispers (that are not so quiet) in the wind. The American people are crying out for change and teamwork, and there is chance for hope. Democratic politicians stop stepping on your own feet and stumbling. Stop the attacks on the woman once and for all. It is humiliating to hear and watch.

Revolutionary actions should, and must be taken. Swords must be put down, teamwork must ensue and the spring of discontent buried. It is the darkness before the glorious sunrise, and a time in which these two magnificent candidates must find a way to win this election letting go of all the drama and words, placing one foot in front of other. What is at stake is not just one four year term, but four consecutive terms. It is our future and let it not go asunder because of ego, racism or misogyny.

Listen to the winds of change, and let this be the true revolutionary moment in which this country again reaches for prosperity and world leadership. Stop the soap operas. Stop the playground bullies. Stop the demonization. Stop the attacks. That is for daytime television, not the leaders of the free world. We have a chance to reach for it now. Reach up and take it. This is revolutionary moment in time!

John Eskow: Why Has John McCain Abandoned the American Soldier?

George Bush, Dick Cheney, and John McCain are sending a razor-sharp message to the fighting men and women of America.

It's underlined again in bright, fresh, blood-red every time a tank in Bahgdad is blown up by an IED and shrapnel rips into another soldier's flesh.

It's written in script-letters of grimy dust along the floors and walls of fly-infested VA hospitals.

It's spelled out in the invisible ink of the GI Bill that's still not passed -- the critically-important Webb/Hagel bill, sponsored by two gutsy Senators (and veterans) with the courage not to quit in the face of cold-blooded Bush/McCain resistance.

That secret message is everywhere the American soldier and veteran looks nowadays. But it's a secret message that's not really all that secret -- it goes something like this: pssst. Hey dude and dudette. Come. Be All You Can Be. We'll sing you national anthems and write you flowery speeches. We'll solemnly call you the pride of a nation, the Best of the Best, as we Stop-Loss you back to Iraq for tour after tour. But then, goddamn it--if you DO manage somehow to keep your ass from gettin' blowed up, and find your way back home, you're on your own. Understand?

To which The Happy Warrior, John McCain, might add: This is America, "my friends!" Do what I did! Marry some billionaire Cruella-de-Ville lookin' chick, and you won't NEED health-care for your war injuries! Over and over, McCain has chosen tax-breaks for the rich over the desperate needs of our wounded GIs. Whatever his private reasons, in addition to fighting non-stop to block the GI bill, McCain has -- as reported by Aaron Glantz, author of The War Comes Home:

-- voted against nearly every effort to increase funding for healthcare and disability benefits for wounded soldiers

-- voted against the interests of disabled American veterans 80 percent of the time

-- received a D+ voting grade from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (when Obama got a B+, and Clinton, to her lasting credit, an A-)

--consistently voted against expanding mental healthcare and readjustment counseling for service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, efforts to expand treatment for injured veterans, and proposals to lower co-payments and enrollment fees veterans must pay to obtain prescription drugs.

And it goes without saying that the ex-bomber-pilot never lifted a finger to help Mary Tillman, as she struggled valiantly -- through one Pentagon lie after another -- in a lonely quest to find out what really killed her heroic son Pat.

Some maverick, huh?

For our suffering vets, the "Straight Talk Express" is a runaway train bound to Nowheresville.

Many peace groups make it clear that while they oppose the war, they support our troops. McCain's real campaign slogan ought to be: I support the war, but I oppose our troops.

Clinton's Top Gun: "I Have Seen No Evidence Of Interest" In VP Spot

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign rejected suggestions Sunday that Sen. Hillary Clinton is staying in the race in hopes of brokering some kind of agreement with the likely Democratic nominee.

"I don't believe that Sen. Clinton is looking for a deal," Obama's chief campaign strategist, David Axelrod, told "Fox News Sunday," when asked about suggestions she may want the Obama campaign's help retiring her campaign debt.

"I don't think that's what this is about," he said.

Last week, Obama sparked rumors that his campaign would pay off Clinton's campaign debts once he secured the nomination.

Raul Castro's daughter spearheads anti-homophobia drive (AFP via Yahoo! News)

President Raul Castro's daughter, Mariela, is organizing Cuba's second anti-homophobia festival this week to boost public awareness of the country's long-marginalized gay community, this time with the approval of her dad's government.
Read more [Politics from UnFox News]

Kal Penn: Open Letter to Two Undeclared College Superdelegates

[The following was sent as an open letter to two undeclared superdelegates (Lauren Wolfe and Awais Khaleel, who are the President and Vice President of College Democrats)].

Awais & Lauren :

Four years ago, a friend of mine in Texas was working a minimum wage job so that he could one day go to college. His phone rang one evening, and the voice on the other line offered him a $90,000 job driving a truck for a defense contractor in Iraq. He called me and asked what I thought he should do. No matter what he decided, I remember thinking, "What a sad day when the world's richest, most powerful country can only offer 2 choices to someone who wants to go to college: minimum wage, or $90,000 in a war zone."

After reading Jason Rae's note earlier this week, I feel obligated to share with you my experiences as a surrogate at colleges and community centers from Virginia to Indiana, Ohio to Pennsylvania, Wisconsin to North Carolina.

State after state, I have been meeting young people who, for the first time in their lives, are not simply voting, but volunteering for a campaign. After being told for years that their voices don't count for much, they have risen up and joined us in securing a better world for all Americans. Many of these folks cannot afford a college education. Many lack health care. Some are caring for ailing parents. Others are first-generation Americans. Overwhelmingly, they've answered the challenge that Senator Obama has given them: to take responsibility and become involved. I ask you not to ignore them any longer.

Young voters are mobilized for Barack in some of the most unlikely places. I'm reminded of a very moving event at the largely conservative Miami University of Ohio several weeks back; Ranked as the 4th least diverse school in the nation by the Princeton Review, our surrogate rally drew 500 students -- a large number of whom showed up with handmade "Obama '08" signs. The College Democrats on campus were blown away, having never seen more than small double-digit attendance at any of their general meetings. These several hundred students, a great many of whom were conservative Republicans, came to learn more about Barack Obama and left that night as supporters. I ask you not to deny them the opportunity to support the Democratic Party.

It was indeed important to remain neutral as the candidates themselves reached out to young Americans. As representatives of a college group, I respect your decision to have waited until your constituents made their voices heard in a clear fashion. But that time has come and gone. You are no doubt aware that this election season started with an increase in youth voter turnout of 135% above 2004 levels in Iowa. Senator Obama won the 'youth vote' by a 4-1 margin in that state, followed by 3-1 in New Hampshire, and 2-1 in Nevada.

He is the only candidate -- Democrat or Republican -- to have an active National Arts Policy Committee to preserve and encourage the ties between the arts and culture, education, civil/national preservation, and national & international security. He is the only candidate -- Democrat or Republican - to have made a commitment to true reform and refused federal lobbyist money in his presidential campaign. He also refused to stand idly by, and spoke out publicly while Senators McCain and Clinton voted to authorize a war that continues to send scores of young Americans overseas.

Perhaps three weeks ago was not the right time to pledge. But neither is three weeks from now. Your failure to pledge now risks returning those passionate, first-time voters to a political landscape of the same old games that caused them to maintain such distance from the Democratic Party before. If you are being pressured by others to wait until later in May or June to pledge, please be aware that you risk hurting the majority of folks who have made their clear choice in Senator Obama. I work with them every day. These young voters were mobilized because of a belief in their ability to change the game-playing Washington establishment politics that has failed them for so long. You may be reluctant to endorse because you are DNC officers, but you have a mandate from scores of young voters to pledge now. As the future of the Democratic Party, they look up to you. Please don't let the system fail them again. This should not be about party politics and should not be about insider loyalties. This is about the constituents you represent, and their inclusion and involvement for years to come.

Your failure to pledge now also risks denying young, first-time voters the very things for which they have supported the Democratic Party now: universal health care, access to education, freedom from war, a sustainable environment, fair, unionized jobs, and serious, long-term economic solutions. Please don't risk pledging too late and hurting their credibility.

You need to pledge your support for Senator Obama today. You need to do this for the scores of young voters who turned out in unprecedented, historic numbers. You need to do this for a college freshman I spoke with in North Carolina last Monday, who tirelessly splits his time between school, volunteer work, and helping care for his ailing father. You need to do this for the brave young men and women who are in the military, and for the young woman in Minnesota who, with tears streaming down her face, explained that she can't pay off her student loans on a teaching salary.

You need to do this for people like my friend who was making minimum wage four years ago. He ultimately turned down that job offer in Iraq. He has still not been able to afford a college education. You need to show him that the richest, most powerful country in the world hasn't forgotten him.

Best,

Kal Penn

Surrogate/National Arts Policy Committee Member
Barack Obama for President

[Kal Penn (Kalpen Modi) is an actor based in Los Angeles. He currently appears on the television series, House, is an Adjunct Professor of Cinema, Sociology, and Asian American Studies at the University of Pennsylvania, and is pursuing a Graduate Certificate in International Security at Stanford University. He is a surrogate for the Obama Campaign and a member of the Campaign's National Arts Policy Committee]

Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus: Gas Tax Controversy Is a Warning to Democrats

While the call by Hillary Clinton and John McCain to suspend the gasoline tax is unquestionably a crass pander to working class swing voters more concerned about rising energy prices than global warming, it is also a warning to Democrats that dealing with global warming by raising energy prices is not a sustainable political strategy.

Next month the Senate will take up legislation -- "cap and trade" -- that would regulate greenhouse gas emissions and increase the price of electricity from fossil fuels. Coal companies -- whose advertisements during the Democratic presidential debates were a shot across the Party's bow-- are already gearing up to run a multi-million dollar ad campaign aimed at stoking voter fears of higher energy prices.

Remember the insurance industry's "Harry and Louise" ad, where a husband and wife fretted about the cost of the Clinton health care plan? Well Harry and Louise will soon be back in American living rooms, courtesy of the fossil fuel lobby. Only this time they'll be worrying about how much global warming legislation will raise their energy bills.

Democratic leaders in the Senate are plowing ahead, ignoring the fact that they have sailed these treacherous waters before. In 1993, President Clinton and Vice President Gore proposed a new tax on energy. While they succeeded in persuading Democrats in the House to vote for it, Democratic Senators balked, and the measure failed. Many House Democrats who voted for the measure lost reelection in 1994, and several pointed to the energy tax as one of the main reasons.

This time is different, environmental leaders insist. The public is more concerned about global warming today than ever before, and the regulations they are proposing aren't technically a tax, even if they will end up raising electricity prices. Such over-confidence has been the death of green efforts in the past. On the 20th anniversary of Earth Day in 1990, environmental leaders were so sure that the public was on their side that they loaded up a ballot initiative, known as "Big Green," with dozens of new regulations on everything from chemicals to carbon. A few months later the economy slid into recession and that November voters rejected Big Green by a whopping two-to-one margin.

Anticipating opposition of the "Harry and Louise" variety, Senate leaders are expected to dilute the global warming cap with loopholes and safety valves that prevent the price of carbon dioxide pollution -- and thus the price of electricity -- from rising very high. And while this may be good politics, the result will be legislation that has little impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

Democratic and environmental leaders insist that the global warming cap and trade pollution law will be as effective as the 1990 Clean Air Act on acid rain, which capped sulfur dioxide emissions and allowed companies to buy and sell reductions in emissions to each other. But whereas the past "cap and trade" law required coal companies to install inexpensive scrubbers to smokestacks, or purchase low-sulfur coal from Wyoming and New Mexico, overcoming global warming requires a whole new energy infrastructure -- such as new transmission lines to bring wind power from the Dakotas and solar power from the Southwest to big cities -- as well as new, expensive technologies, from solar and wind, to coal plants that capture and store their emissions.

This is already playing out in Europe. The European Union has set a fairly high price for polluting carbon dioxide -- about $38 per ton of carbon dioxide -- but it is still cheaper for European energy companies to build new coal plants and purchase off-sets, which is why Europe is today on a coal-building boom, despite the cost it has imposed on polluters. While estimates vary, few expect U.S. climate legislation to result in a carbon dioxide price above $30 per ton for the foreseeable future.

There is a better way. Truly dealing with global warming not just in the U.S. but also in China, which passed the U.S. in emissions last year, requires making clean energy as cheap as possible, as quickly as possible. The good news is that doing so is far more popular politically than increasing the cost of electricity at a time when public anxiety over the economy is rising. Voters overwhelmingly support this objective, and Gallup found last year that 65 percent of voters support spending at least $30 billion a year to do it. A poll conducted by Oakland polling firm EMC Research for the environmental Nathan Cummings Foundation last fall found that voters favored large government investments over cap and trade 84 to 62 percent before arguments were made against it, and 54 to 46 percent after arguments were read.

Just before the 1990 election, a Sierra Club spokesperson told a newspaper, ""If Big Green loses, it will look like the movement cannot translate the rhetoric of Earth Day into the reality of Election Day." The 38th Earth Day has come and gone. If the environmental movement is to finally translate its rhetoric into reality, it will need to shift its focus from making dirty energy expensive to making clean energy cheap.

Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, authors of Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility.

New Group With Clinton Ties Pushes A 'Dream Ticket'

A group called VoteBoth has been leading the charge for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to team up on the Democratic ticket.

But the people behind it come from just one of those camps - Clinton's - and one of their goals may be keeping Clinton's White House prospects alive.

On Friday, when word went out that Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., didn't see Clinton as Obama's pick for a running mate, VoteBoth released a statement offering respect for Kennedy. But it added, "We think that the millions of Democrats who have voted for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have something to say, too. Why stop at having a nominee who has the support of 51 percent of Democrats when we could have a 'Dream Team' ticket that has won 100 percent?"

Greg Mitchell: Arianna's New Book Shows How Media Ignored 'Downing Street Memo'

Arianna Huffington's new book, Right Is Wrong, should revive interest in numerous sins of omission and commission on the part of the mainstream media in the past few years. One episode -- dating from three years ago this month -- that I only touch lightly on in my new book on Iraq and the media gets better play in her book.

You remember the Downing Street Memo? That formerly secret British document which revealed that almost a year before the attack on Iraq the British government had become convinced that the Bushites had "fixed" the intelligence on Iraq to mislead everyone into supporting an invasion?

It became public and widely reported in the overseas press and on blogs in the U.S. (and at my own Editor & Publisher, one of the few MSM spots to cover it early on).

Arianna in her book contrasts that non-coverage in May with the massive attention lavished on the Natalee Holloway disappearance and the Michael Jackson child molesting trial. She even publishes a scorecard by network.

For example, ABC News had nothing on the memo, 42 segments on Natalee, 121 pieces on Jacko. CBS News was even worse, while NBC did better (six whole segments on the memo). For News had 10 segments mentioning the memo -- but 148 on Natalee and 286 on Jacko.

Arianna then hits the network execs' tired old argument that "we're just giving the people what they want." Talk about "fixed intelligence"!

Later in the book, in her takedown of Tim Russert, she watches former GOP chief Ken Mehlman go on Meet the Press on May 22, 2005, and assert, referring to the British memo, "that report has been discredited by everyone else who's looked at it since then."

Russert actually challenges him on this, saying that the memo's authenticity has not been discredited. Mehlman replies: "The fact that the intelligence was somehow 'fixed' have been totally discredited by everyone who's looked at it." With that, "Bulldog Russert just gave up."

Of course, nothing since then has either discredited the memo - or the view that the intelligence was, indeed, fixed.

Greg Mitchell's new book is So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Fails on Iraq. It features a preface by Bruce Springsteen and a foreword by Joe Galloway.

McCain Supporters Divided On How Much They Love George W. Bush

Ahh, John McCain and George W. Bush. Where does one man end and the other man begin? If you're left feeling confused as to whether McCain's a party-line busting rebel with his own maverick ideas or a genuflecting toadie of the current regime for whom the only question is whether George W. Bush is the greatest president or the greatest president EVER IN LIFE!...you are not alone. McCain's own surrogates can't seem to make up their mind.

Mitt Romney, the robot who ran for President powered only by silver medals and fraud, has been auditioning to be a great leaden weight around McCain's neck - or, as Romney puts it, "vice-president." So he took up McCain's cause today on Wolf Blitzer's Late Edition emphatically denying that McCain was going to be a continuation of the Bush doctrine: "Well I think you're going to hear that time and again, Wolf, throughout the campaign season. And I just don't think it's going to stick."

Of course, by "time and again," Romney might have been referring to "just moments ago." Roy Blunt, another McCain surrogate, when asked by Blitzer if the McCain candidacy represented a "third Bush term," answered in the affirmative: "It would be. I think it would be. And I think that's a good thing."

And here's the essential mashup of the astounding core competencies and breathtaking message discpline of the McCainiacs, courtesy of ThinkProgress.

[WATCH.]

David Sirota: Recognizing the Race Chasm

The issue of race makes a lot of folks uncomfortable -- and that's especially true right now when the nation is closer than ever to electing the first black President of the United States. As my new newspaper column this week shows, many serious people who dominate our political debate have reacted to this historic election and their own queasiness about race by exposing their prejudices.

On one side, you have the ostriches -- the political "thinkers" like Reihan Salam and Michael Lind who look at the Race Chasm and pretend it doesn't exist. These people look at a racially polarized election map, and explain it away with either flippant fact-free stories about Hillary Clinton's "waitress-mom
sensibility," or wild theories about Northern European migration trends from a century ago. They expect us to forget that most often the simplest explanation is the most obvious -- especially when it comes to a black-white racial divide that has been a defining characteristic of American culture since our country's inception.

On the other side you have the minstrel show producers -- the media and politicians who are more than thrilled to exploit race and treat African-Americans as less than human. My column offers up all sorts of specific examples of this, but I think Keith Woods of the Poynter Institute summed it up best. Appearing on PBS this week, he said:

Each side is expressing a form of bigotry. In denying the racial divide exists, the ostriches are telling African-Americans that racism is just their imagination. In other words, the whitewashing (no pun intended) legitimizes racism by pretending it doesn't exist.

The minstrel show producers are more honest than the ostriches -- they are overtly telling African-Americans that they are unimportant, even though that's positively false in both the human and political sense.

The silver lining in all of this is the fact that -- despite the ostriches -- we may start to have a much-needed national conversation about race, to the great consternation of wealthy white pundits like Bill Kristol. As all of this racism oozes out of the political establishment for all to see, we can recognize just how bigoted American culture is and recognition is the first step towards addressing a problem.

You can read the whole column at the San Francisco Chronicle, Denver Post, Ft. Collins Coloradoan, In These Times, TruthDig, Credo Action, or Creators. The column relies on grassroots support, so if you'd like to see my column regularly in your local paper, use this directory to find the contact info for your local editorial page editors. Get get in touch with them and point them to my Creators Syndicate site. Thanks, as always, for your ongoing readership and help contacting local editors. This column couldn't be what it is without your help.

Bill George: Open Letter to Bill Clinton

You are facing one of the leadership challenges of your life. You need to decide whether to put the interests of the United States and the world ahead of your personal interests. Doing so means setting aside getting your wife elected and maintaining control over the Democratic Party.

Only you -- not former President Jimmy Carter, not Al Gore, not any other Democrat -- can convince your wife that the country's best interests dictate that she should abandon her failed attempt to become the country's first female president. It is far more important that both of you dedicate the next five months to uniting your supporters behind the election of Senator Barack Obama as the next president of the United States.

That's what leadership is all about.

No one can doubt that you have been a great leader for the U.S. and the world during the past sixteen years. The contrast of your presidency with that of President George W. Bush is so painful that it doesn't merit recounting here. Yet through all of President Bush's failed attempts to repudiate your accomplishments as president, you have stayed above the fray and dedicated yourself to make the world a better place, using your personal foundation as a vehicle. In so doing, you have gained the admiration of leaders throughout the world, including many of your former detractors.

One of your greatest qualities as president was facing reality: in 1994 you recognized that you had to abandon your wife's flawed health care plan in order to save your presidency. On welfare you faced the reality that the welfare plans of the Democrats' New Deal weren't working and joined with Republicans to implement the welfare-to-work plan. On trade you faced the realities of globalization and supported free trade agreements like NAFTA and GATT, even while sacrificing the political support of the labor unions. On immigration you faced the reality that expanding visas for legal immigrants was critical for innovation, especially in the high tech industry. Your brilliant economic policies ignited to the greatest period of growth and innovation since the post-war period and even created a surplus for the federal budget, a dramatic contrast with President George W. Bush's mammoth deficit spending.

Now you need to face the reality that your wife has already lost her bid to become the first woman president. The ultimate outcome of the primary campaign has been known since Senator Obama won ten consecutive elections in March.

All too late, Senator Clinton tried to remake her image from a Washington elitist who gained experience as your spouse into Rosie the Riveter, a tough-talking fighter who has endured sniper fire and advocates complex solutions for the working class and the elderly. To derail Obama's campaign, she teamed with John McCain in attempting to pin an elitist label on Obama, who grew up with a single mother on food stamps and gave up the potential for the lucrative career as a Wall Street lawyer to work in the projects in Chicago's South Side.

Hillary played up racial fears about Obama by highlighting his associations with Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan and suggested that this devoted Christian was not a Muslim "as far as I know." As she became more desperate, she reopened fears of September 11, threatened to "obliterate Iran," and pandered to the electorate with her summer gas tax holiday that she knew would never come to pass. These actions earned her the support of Rush Limbaugh, whose crossover Republican voters, eager to keep these attacks on Senator Obama going, likely provided the margin of her slim victory in Indiana.

Regrettably, the result of her "scorched earth" campaign to destroy Senator Barack Obama's bid to become the first non-white president has only helped Senator John McCain's election bid and provided him with free video clips for the fall campaign. By pitting whites and Hispanics against blacks, old against young, blue collar against white collar, and women against men, she has employed the politics of "divide and conquer" instead of calling for national unity to restore our country to its former greatness.

If you really want to help our country, you will convince you wife to stop dragging out the inevitable and get behind Obama's campaign to defeat John McCain while there is still time. Both you and your wife have proven themselves to be dedicated campaigners. Now you need to work just as hard to elect Senator Obama.

Although your time to lead the country has past, there is so much you can still do to help the world. But your most important leadership task now to help Barack Obama become your logical successor, because Obama is the only person who can unite the country to face the ever-increasing problems of the economy, racial divides, education, health care, energy and the environment, and poverty, while getting our troops out of Iraq and rebuilding our relationships with the rest of the world.

Mia Farrow: Thoughts on Yesterday's Rebel Attempt to Topple Khartoum

In recent weeks there has been an alarming spike in the violence in Darfur with government bombings in north Darfur where a school and marketplace were attacked leaving more than a dozen civilian dead and many more wounded. Among the those killed were 6 school children. The international community was further outraged when the government refused to permit UN aircraft to transport the wounded to a medical facility. After nearly 2 days, the seriously wounded children, including a little girl with a broken back were put in a car and driven about 8 hours over rough roads to an MSF clinic.

This week the rebel group JEM led by Khalil Ibrahim left the remote Darfur region -- moving in a convoy of some 700 vehicles from the Chad borderland toward the capital itself. That they actually reached the suburb area of Omdurman -- just across the Nile bridge from Khartoum is unprecedented and remarkable. No casualties have been announced yet but terrified residents reported heavy artillery fire. In the capital a curfew was imposed, and residents were ordered to remain indoors while armored vehicles and helicopters headed for Omdurman.

The Government of Sudan claim their army has defeated the rebels and accuses Chadian President Idris Deby of backing the coup attempt, an accusation Deby denies.

I am struggling to understand this -- and its possible consequences. I find it baffling that JEM attempted this assault which they could not possibly have pulled off without massive, spontaneous backing from within -- which did not happen. When the best hope for peace in Darfur ultimately lies at a conference table, it is dispiriting but not surprising to read that government officials are now saying they will refuse to negotiate with any representative from the JEM. It would seem that this latest development has pushed the possibilities for a peace process even further from the table.

On the other hand -- since there is no peace process on the horizon, perhaps this could actually stimulate the calls for a political process.

Miafarrow.org

Hanna Ingber Win: Local Corruption Hampering Burma Recovery Efforts

In the midst of a massive humanitarian crisis in Burma in which 1.5 million people are at risk of dying from disease, local government officials in Rangoon have been selling aid and bribing residents in order to turn a profit, according to sources in Rangoon. It has been eight days since Cyclone Nargis wiped out entire villages along the Irrawaddy delta and left Rangoon in shambles, but the ruling junta has prevented relief efforts from barely making a dent in the recovery process.

Government officials have stolen donations of rice, cooking oil and diesel and sold them on the black market, a businessman in Rangoon said on Sunday. In several townships around the major city, the government announced that it would provide a certain amount of rice and cooking oil to each household, but local township officers were found refusing families their quotas and instead selling the goods on the black market.

"Most community heads and their staffs are doing good biz in leading distribution of aids, like petrol, oil with cheap price/ but they store a lot/ they steal a lot," the businessman wrote.
The businessman, whose 15-month old baby has a case of diarrhea due to lack of clean drinking water, said the officers denied his family its quota as well.

He sent his information to a contact in Thailand via Google Chat because the junta can censor email from the government-service providers and from Gmail. Even natural disasters are politically sensitive in Burma, and the junta has sent Burmese to prison in the past for giving information to the international press.

Rangoon residents have also found packages of salt from Thailand in markets and have assumed that foreign countries intended to give out the supplies freely as aid. "We are not sure but feeling bad because we know things like that happens all our life," said a humanitarian worker who lives in Rangoon. "Drugs from UNICEF [were available to] buy from the market when we were young."

This cannot be verified, though it reveals the people's lack of trust in government officials to forgo personal profit for the sake of helping survivors of a natural disaster.

The Burmese government, which rules the country with an iron fist, has also used the cyclone as an opportunity to improve it own propaganda machine. The junta, which has forbid foreign governments from distributing aid directly, has also prevented residents from donating directly to survivors, according to the woman who works for a humanitarian organization. Residents must donate to a government-backed group, called the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA), which then distributes the aid as if it came from them.

"There were some people coming to the rescue tent and distribute rice," she wrote in an email.

"The local authority stopped them and asked to distribute through them and the donors left."
The junta controls all media inside the country, and state television has shown image after image of soldiers giving out aid to victims.

Despite the utter poverty in Rangoon and inability of most survivors to afford basics like food and shelter, local authorities in some townships have also started collecting 5000 Kyats from each household to give to the ministry of electrical power, according to the businessman. He said families on his street were forced to collect all of the money, about 1,000,000 Kyats, and give it to the electric department in order to have their street's electricity repaired. The cyclone wiped out most electricity in the city.

Electricity is critical in Rangoon because most homes rely on it to pump water into a private tank. If there is no electricity, people cannot access clean water and are at risk of disease.

People in Rangoon have expressed outrage and disbelief at the junta's decision to manipulate the situation for its own gain as well as for its focus on Saturday's referendum on a draft constitution instead of the relief process, its inability to clean up the city and provide needed services, and its refusal to allow foreign aid workers into the country.

However, the humanitarian worker also said some people in Rangoon believe the government propaganda and think that the disaster is not severe and that the government is doing its best to help the people.

She wrote via Google Chat: "Ppl r dying n some ppl still think situation is not bad."

Bill Kristol Predicts Obama Veep As...Dick Gephardt?

Remember four years ago when the New York Post announced to the world that Dick Gephardt was going to be Kerry's pick for vice-president, except that it wasn't true, not one word of it, not even a syllable? Good times! And we were all reminded of those good times this morning on Fox News Sunday when the most genius man in punditry, William Kristol, confidentally predicted that Richard Gephardt would be Obama's vice-presidential pick. And it took Terry McAuliffe pronouncing Tim Russert's father - who is very much alive - dead and in heaven for my brain to to add a triple toe-loop to the quadruple axel spin that it did at this moment.

[WATCH.]

LIASSON: I think he needs someone with foreign policy experience. By definition they'll be older than him. I think if you want to do the easy route, Ted Strickland probably will get you Ohio.

WALLACE: Governor of Ohio.

LIASSON: Which is a state that you really, really need. He doesn't have foreign policy experience. Ed Rendell.

WALLACE: Governor of Pennsylvania.

LIASSON: If they need him to get Pennsylvania I don't think that's not such a good thing for the Democrats. Sam Nunn I think would be great, but he's a little old.

WALLACE: I'll give you one name.

KRISTOL: Dick Gephardt.

WALLACE: Former congressman, Missouri.

KRISTOL: Former Democratic leader in the congress. Very attractive to working class Democrats.

WILLIAMS: Very nice, but old news.

Uhm, yeah. Very attractive to working class Democrats. Who powered Gephardt to the presidential nomination all of ZERO times.

Naturally, one has to allow for the possibility that Kristol is making a one-in-a-million prediction here. So, if he turns out to be correct, I promise to bake him an apple pie while wearing a prom dress on the roof of the Newseum.

Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner: Happy Mother's Day, Really?

With Mother's Day today and more that 21,000 floral shops busy sending bouquets in honor of the occasion, most would agree that our nation generally supports "mom and apple pie," but the question, "Does our country do more than pay lip service to the important role of mothers?" becomes more and more pressing each day as the economy tightens and families struggle to keep up.

Turns out that too many modern mothers are suffering from "Invisible Woman" syndrome. That's a big part of why a quarter of U.S. families with children under six is living in poverty, and why women are still struggling to break the glass ceiling and, in many cases, to even get past the Maternal Wall to get in the room (Last I checked there were only 13 female CEOs of Fortune 500 companies).

Here's what that invisibility looks like: Diane, a mother of three, was standing in the prep room of the Wal-Mart deli where she worked in Florida. She and two other women who worked together at the deli were getting ready for the day, taking food out of the freezer, opening packages of meat, and putting together food trays.

A young man about eighteen years old, a new hire, walked through the double swinging doors from the warehouse muttering complaints under his breath. Diane recalls, "He was saying, 'They want me to do this, and they want me to do that, all for this small amount of money. And then he said his pay.' We were all like, 'What! That's how much they hired you at!?'" His pay was much higher than theirs even though they had much more experience.

The "Invisible Woman Syndrome" also looks like this: Women without children make 90 cents to a man's dollar, mothers make 73 cents to the dollar, and single mothers make only about 60 cents to a man's dollar. Further, mothers are 79% less likely to be hired than non-mothers with equal resumes and job experiences.

The upshot: modern mothers in the labor force are outright discriminated against in pay and hiring practices. With three in four mothers in the labor force these days, and many families needing two incomes to make ends meet, this isn't something we can afford to keep invisible.

Full-time mothers aren't faring much better. In fact, families with a full-time parent are seven times more likely to be living in poverty than those with both parents in the labor force.

Its 2008, so why are things still this way? One reason is that our nation still has its head in the sand when it comes to the need of parents and children.

Even in the midst of a presidential election, with women comprising 54 percent of the electorate, candidates aren't paying attention to the issues that matter most to women and families. According to Stan Greenberg, chairman and CEO of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, which conducted an April 2008 poll of women voters for "Women's Voices, Women Vote Action Fund," "[Women have] gotten more excited about the election, you know, more engaged, but they don't see their issues being addressed. They are looking for pay equity to be addressed. Minimum wage, daycare, education, those are not issues that they've heard the candidates talk about."

Our nation was founded on the notion of equality, and we've struggled for years to attain that, but we're just not there yet. We have a ways to go -- particularly for the 81% of women who have children by the time they are forty-four in our nation.

Solutions to these shared problems aren't far from our fingertips, and they're not too expensive or complex. Countries with family-friendly policies and programs in place -- like paid family leave and subsidized childcare -- don't have the same degree of maternal wage gaps as we do here. Further their governments and economies aren't struggling because they support mothers and families. In fact, many are better off, since family-friendly policies can result in savings through reducing grade repetitions, fewer interactions with the criminal justice system, lower infant mortality rates, and a lower overall need for other government entitlement programs.

We can change our nation for the better and shed our invisibility. Mothers are powerful. There are 82.8 million of us in America, and we vote. And no matter where we're from, we face many of the same hurdles. This year, let's call for candidates for all offices to continue thinking about mothers after the flowers, cards, and perfume from Mother's Day have been sent; and give mothers something they can really use.

MomsRising has put together an e-card where you can take action at the end of the animation by sending all the presidential candidates a request to speak to the issues which matter to mothers and families. Join us in stopping the "Invisible Woman" syndrome in its tracks: http://www.momsrising.org/MOTHERsongforyou

Clinton spends Mother's Day campaigning in W.Va. (AP)

AP - Hillary Rodham Clinton toured the birthplace of Mother's Day in rural West Virginia, offering Democrats a subtle reminder Sunday that her fading candidacy remains strong among women and blue-collar, white voters.

Will Obama Lose West Virginia, Kentucky Because He's Black?

Given every metric, Barack Obama is obviously well positioned to win the Democratic presidential nomination. And yet, on Tuesday, he's going to lose the West Virginia primary by a very large margin. A week later, he's going to lose the Kentucky primary by a whole lot of percentage points, too.

Polling is a little sketchy, but Hillary Clinton should win West Virginia by about 40 points (Bill Clinton suggested the other day HRC's margin could be as high as 80 points). Polls in Kentucky point to a Clinton victory in the 35-point range.

Clinton Campaign Still Searching For "Damaging Info" On Obama