Yellow Dog Blog

Is gun control really about race?

2008-08-21T14:50:00.000-07:00

I doubt you'll hear the Illinois State Rifle Association raising these arguments in public, but this column by author Kristian Williams and activist Peter Little takes a look at the historical racial undertones of the gun control debate in America.

Talking About Guns, Fighting About Race is an eye-opener:

Truth is, there has always been gun control in America. Starting in the colonial period and continuing after the American Revolution, laws excluded specific people from gun ownership — slaves, free blacks, Indians, poor whites, non-Protestants and even some heterodox Protestant sects.
During the same period, militias — which never performed particularly well in military engagements — were chiefly responsible for putting down insurrections. And in the South, they were responsible for organizing slave patrols to police the black population.

After the Civil War, Southern states sought to preserve this tradition by instituting “black codes” that barred blacks from owning guns, land or businesses. At the same time, terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan continued the work of the slave patrols, using violence to restrict blacks’ travel, suppress their political activity and disarm them.

And more recently...

In Watson v. Stone (1941), the Florida Supreme Court overturned the gun conviction of a white man. Justice Rivers Buford wrote in his concurring opinion: “The Act was passed for the purpose of disarming negro laborers. … [It] was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied.”
A quarter century later, in 1967, California passed its Panther Law, with the specific aim of ending the Black Panthers’ armed patrols against police brutality.

White supremacy has refined its presentation since the civil rights period, relying increasingly on nominally colorblind laws. Yet many gun regulations — bans on guns in housing projects and laws that take the cheapest pistols off the market, for example — have continued to disproportionately affect people of color.

Concluding...

Many liberals trust the state to respect the rights of individuals and to protect them against crime and disorder. They see no role for private gun ownership under the rule of law.
Many conservatives retain some suspicion of government regulation and don’t believe the state capable of protecting decent law-abiding people. They see gun ownership both as an emblem of citizenship and as a protection against those they view as criminals — historically, blacks and, at present, immigrants.

The disagreement is over who should have guns.

The point of agreement is over who shouldn’t.
As presently construed, both the gun-control and the gun-rights arguments — that is, both the liberal and the conservative positions — represent the defense of white supremacy.

Like I said, you won't hear the Illinois State Rifle Association making this argument. But logically I have to concede that if a white man has a constitutional right to protect his family and his home, so does a black man, even if he was convicted of some unrelated crime. Especially if that crime neither involved a gun nor was violent.

Is Google the new Wal-Mart?

2008-08-01T11:43:00.000-07:00

I’m naturally suspicious of any corporation that claims to be looking out for our best interests. Maybe that’s part of my Democratic DNA, maybe it just comes with being old enough to remember the 80’s.

So Google’s corporate motto, “Do No Evil,” raised particular suspicion with me. But you don’t see a lot of bloggers writing about Google, in part because many are gullible enough to buy into the notion that Google is an internet-age deity.

For some reason, the mainstream media hasn’t written much about them either, which is a little surprising, since Google is pretty much single-handedly putting newspapers out-of-business by sucking up all of the advertising dollars.

The San Francisco Chronicle has finally broken the silence, highlighting Congressional hearings over Google’s efforts to corner the market for online advertising, just as Wal-Mart began cornering the retail market in the 80’s:

The devil's best trick is to persuade us that he doesn't exist, but Google only has to convince us that it's not evil. Nearing an agreement with Yahoo to grab the ailing company's search business, Google scripted a series of dramatic public events apparently designed to distract from the pending deal. These events emphasize network neutrality, an ever-changing regulatory ideal that Google thrust into the political spotlight two years ago. As entertaining as this spectacle is, regulators should not be fooled. They should apply traditional anti-monopoly standards, blocking the Google-Yahoo deal.

…Despite its carefully crafted public image as a naive and squeaky-clean innovator, Google is a public corporation managed by professionals, some of them longtime friends of Washington power brokers and fully capable of understanding the problems the Google-Yahoo deal poses.

Google’s corporate do-gooder cloak and talk about net neutrality reminded me an awful lot of Wal-Mart’s short-lived “Buy American” campaign and talk about how they were fighting for small town America buy creating jobs. All while they were gearing up to become the largest importer from China and using their insider connections to win huge tax subsidies and put Main Street America out of business.

Was there a pattern here? Yep.

Always Politics-as-Usual. Always.

Created in late 2006, Google’s GoogleNETPAC has funneled more than $200,000 into federal campaigns, and still has more than $100,000 cash-on-hand.

Okay, everyone’s entitled to have their voice heard and support candidates of their choice.

But Google’s also engaging in old-school corporate politics, funneling money into both sides of the fight:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: $5,000

House Republican Leader John Boehner: $5,000

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: $5,000

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell: $3,000

And if that’s not enough to convince you, Check out GoogleNETPAC’s contributions to members of the Senate Commerce Committee, who met on July 9^th to hold subject-matter hearings on Google’s pending monopoly:

Democrats: $12,500
Republicans: $11,500

D Boxer $ 2,500

D Dorgan $ 2,000

D Inouye $ 2,500

D Lautenberg $ 1,000

D Nelson $ 2,500

D Pryor $ 2,000
R Smith $ 5,000
R Snowe $ 1,500
R Sununu $ 5,000

And over on the House side, Google has done a fine job of fueling the fire on both sides of the aisle, supporting both sides of the House Committee on Energy & Commerce and its Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet:

D - Chair Dingell $ 5,000
R – Ranking GOP Barton $ 2,500

D – SubChair Markey $ 2,500
R - Sub Ranking GOP Stearns $ 1,500

D - SubC Boucher $ 3,500
R - SubC Upton $ 1,000

D - SubC Eshoo $ 5,000
R - SubC Walden $ 1,000

Just a coincidence that ALL of Google's contributions to the committee either went to members of the Subcommittee that directly oversee them, or the chair and minority leader of the committee? Definitely not.

Footnote for a Brave New World:

I was talking to a friend last night to get her thoughts about Google, and she told me this story:

I was e-mailing my mom about the earthquake we had awhile back. I told her that when I woke up and found my walls shaking, at first I thought it was my neighbors having really loud sex. Suddenly a Google Ad popped up: “Noisy neighbors? We can meet your home insulation needs…”

Google may be something far worse than the next Wal-Mart. I think I'll disable my cookies today.

House Democrats Shouldn't Take Bait

2008-04-02T05:36:00.000-07:00

Rumors abound that Governor Blagojevich and Senate President Emil Jones are cooking up a plan to hook the Illinois House into supporting funding for the Governor's health care plan by baiting the hook with last year's vetoed member initiative projects.

Jones and Blagojevich must think the members of the "lower chamber" are total idiots.

There's absolutely nothing that would prevent Governor Blagojevich from using his veto pen to slash the member initiative projects after the bill passes.

There's absolutely nothing that would prevent the Blagojevich administration from refusing to release the money even after he signed the budget.

The only guarantee Democrats would have is Blagojevich's word. Which is worthless.

Rod Blagojevich is a bully, and you don't negotiate with bullies. You get everyone they've messed with together and teach them a lesson in the schoolyard after school.

So, here's my unsolicited advice to Illinois House Democrats. Since we know we can't trust Rod Blagojevich to keep his word, and he's going to veto House Democratic projects anyway, let's take a stand against pork projects this year. No pork, zero. None for Republicans, none for Senate Democrats, and especially none for the Governor. Let's pass a budget that strips all of those hidden pots of money out of the Governor's office, the travel budget, the advertising budgets, the DCEO grants, etc., etc., etc. Put the money into the school funding formula, and let Emil and Rod slash that if they want.

Your Turn, John McCain

2008-03-19T10:32:00.000-07:00

"All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.

The newspaper carried the story in our local area, that was not carried nationally, that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it would was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other gay pride parades.

So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing."

- Rev. John Hagee, blaming Hurricane Katrina on God's damnation of New Orleans, for holding a gay pride parade

"I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you, This is not a message of hate -- this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs; it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor."

–Pat Robertson, on "gay days" at Disneyworld

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city. And don't wonder why he hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for his help because he might not be there."

--Pat Robertson, after the city of Dover, Pennsylvania voted to boot the current school board, which instituted an intelligent design policy that led to a federal trial

And perhaps most pointedly, in the wake of September 11th, Pat Robertson said this:

"Well, I totally concur."

–Pat Robertson to Jerry Falwell following the Sept. 11 attacks...

...after Falwell said this:

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say: 'You helped this happen.'"

Finally, A National Poll That DOES Matter

2008-03-10T19:56:00.000-07:00

It amazes me how often t.v. pundits and newspapers report national head-to-head polls, especially this far out. Give t.v. pundits credit for usually reporting that these national polls are irrelevant, largely because they ignore the electoral math.

Finally, a state-by-state poll by a reputable firm that DOES matter, atleast as far as polls eight months out matter.

The lede:

SurveyUSA's 30,000 sample poll (600 voters per state) gives a slight edge to Obama at first glance, and a big electability edge upon further analysis.

It shows Obama beating McCain, 280 - 258, while Clinton beats McCain, 276-262.

Both match-ups show Democrats winning California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia, for a total of 202 electoral votes.

How they add to those totals is very interesting. Clinton adds Arkansas, Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, for a total of 74 more. Winning the big states, as she says.

Obama adds Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska (split), Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington, for a total of 78 more. Doing better in smaller Midwestern states and Western states.

What's MOST interesting about these results for Obama is that Florida (-2 points), New Jersey (virtually tied) and Pennsylvania (-5) are states that Obama hasn't campaigned in. Yet. Head-to-heads also show Obama down only 2 points in North Carolina, another state where he hasn't campaigned.

To be fair, Clinton is competitive in Michigan (virtually tied) and Washington (-2), but much less so in Colorado (-6), Iowa (-5) and Oregon (-5), and don't expect her to compete at all in Nebraska (-27), Nevada (-8), New Hampshire (-8), North Dakota (-19) or Virginia (-10).

Aside from Florida (and Arkansas for Clinton), neither candidate really competes in the South. Which makes the whole "Will the South elect a black President?" question the Clinton's hint at moot.

What is interesting is that Obama does significantly better in Western states and the Midwest, where the other big question, "Do voters want the Clinton's back in the White House?" looms apparent.

(Note: I've been staying away from Clinton-Obama stories, but I thought this might be a good story on poll analysis. Feel free to disagree with me, but before anyone who doesn't like what they read lashes out at thepollster or their methodology, SurveyUSA was only 1 point off on the Foster-Oberweis race, and out of 26 presidential primaries they've polled so far, they've had a median error of +/- 2.0 points). Compared to 5.0 for Zogby (17 polls) and 7.0 for Rasmussen and Mason-Dixon. These guys are to national polling what Dave Fako is to Illinois. No offense, Dave, I know you do business elsewhere)

Irony is a bitter pill

2008-02-20T21:52:00.000-08:00

John McCain has based his entire campaign for the White House on his honor, character and personal integrity.

He's accused Barack Obama of running a campaign based on empty rhetoric and platitudes.

Am I the only one who sees the irony here?

If John McCain was being accused of having a romantic relationship with a waitress, this would blow over.

But his own former staff alleges he was having a romantic relationship with a lobbyist whose clients were regulated by the Senate Committee he chaired.

The FCC has documented that he intervened with federal regulators on her client's behalf. If this was a constituent in his home state of Arizona, that would be one thing. But this was in Pittsburgh.

And it just so happens that client donated tens of thousands of dollars to his campaign.

Pundits offer various opinions, but I don't think this one is going away in the minds of voters. For one thing, Republican voters demonstrated in 2006 that they're just not going to tolerate this anymore. I also think that the mood of the entire country has shifted, and voters on whole take notice of this kind of thing. That's why Obama's campaign to "turn the page" has such strong appeal.

Hillary Clinton: She's in the Glass Business

2008-02-18T20:22:00.000-08:00

After Clinton accused Obama of plagiarism, I couldn't resist:

From 1999 by Environmental Technology Ltd:

"We're in the Solutions Business."

Also:

"We're in the solutions business."

- Mike Overly, Hewlett-Packard, The CRM Handbook

"We're in the Solutions business."

- Giant Step Communications

Googling "We're in the solutions business" sans Clinton returns 398 citations.

Grand Old Partisan: Setting the Obama Record Straight

2008-02-18T15:35:00.000-08:00

Earlier this week, Grand Old Partisan issued what I'm sure is to be a continued party of the Clinton-McCain attacks on Barack Obama: "Where's the beef?"

GOP charged that Obama was all talk, no action on education, health care, transportation and government reform.

Before I respond, let me offer a counter challenge to GOP: What have Hillary Clinton and John McCain ACCOMPLISHED to improve education, health care, transportation and government ethics?

OBAMA ON EDUCATION:

- SB 19 (LAW) enacted school reforms backed by Mayor Daley

- SB 533 (law) expanded teacher training;

- SB 903 (LAW) expanded early childhood education;

- SB 1369 (LAW) created Illinois' first statewide capital needs assessment for schools;

ON HEALTH CARE:

- HB 2268 (LAW) Created the Health Care Justice Act, creating a bipartisan committee of experts to develop a universal health care plan for Illinois;

- SB 59 (LAW) created safety report cards for hospitals;

- SB 130 (LAW) Extended the children's health insurance program;

- SB 263 (LAW) HIV counselling and testing for pregnant women;

- SB 989 (LAW) expand health coverage for the developmentally disabled;

- SB 1417 (LAW) require insurance companies to cover colorectal cancer;

- SB 1418 (LAW) banned the sale of diet pill ephedra, linked to deaths in IL;

- HB 6 (LAW) expanded disaster preparedness programs to include hospitals and first responders;

ON TRANSPORTATION

- SB 1408 (LAW) Bipartisan measure to expand tranportation programs in Illinois;

- SB 46 (LAW) Extended tax credits for bio-fuels;

ON GOVERNMENT REFORM:

- SB 15 (LAW) Required videotaping of homocide interrogations;

- SB 30 (LAW) Cracked down on racial profiling by police;

- SB 1586 (LAW) Strengthened IL Open Meetings Act;

- SB 702 (LAW) Banned solicitation of state employees for campaign contributions, created the IL Inspector General's Office, and made other sweeping changes;

- SB 706 (LAW) Creates an Inspector General's office for the IL SOS to investigate corruption;

GOP uses the same-old attacks that have always been used against advocates of campaign finance reform. George Ryan used them very effectively against Glenn Poshard.

The argument goes something like this: Barack Obama says that Hillary Clinton has raised more money from lobbyists and PACs than any candidate, Democrat or Republican. But Barack Obama used to take money from lobbyists and PACs, so if Hillary Clinton is doing something wrong now, Barack Obama must have been doing something wrong then.

Well, as a State Senator, Obama did raise $93,000 in contributions of more than $1,000. The largest was $10,000 from Gold Coast philanthropist Abby O'Neil.

But he raised $379,000 from donors giving $150 to $1,000 (77%).

Given Illinois "Wild West" campaign finance laws, that's not too shabby.

Compare that to Illinois House GOP Leader Tom Cross:

Contributions of more than $1,000: $5.5 million (66%)

Contributions of $150 to $1,000: $2.2 million (33%)

Or Tom Cross' #2 man, Brent Hassert:

More than $1000: $806,000 (45%)

$150 to $1,000: $1 million (55%)

Hillary: WELCOME to "The Solutions" Business

2008-02-18T09:33:00.000-08:00

After having lost her voice in New Hampshire and then found it, and changing her campaign's central message about a dozen times, Hillary Clinton now claims she's in "the solutions business."

I find that a little ironic, because when it comes to public policy, Hillary Clinton is best known for two "solutions" failures: her failed health care plan from 1994 and more recently, her support for invading Iraq.

The Clintons' Presidency

In fact, the Clinton's track record on health care is pretty abysmal. According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, when the Clinton's presidency began in 1993, 19.4 million Americans lacked health care coverage. By the time the Clinton presidency ended in 2000, the number of uninsured Americans had exploded to 38.7 million, nearly doubling.

On education, 1 in 4 adult Americans were functionally illiterate when the Clinton's took power, and 1 in 4 were still illiterate when they left.

On jobs, the Clinton's rammed NAFTA through Congress with the help of Republicans, costing America more than 800,000 jobs, including 25,000 jobs in Wisconsin, 45,000 jobs in Pennsylvania, 50,000 jobs in Ohio, and 72,000 jobs in Texas.

Clinton's Senate record

Clinton's record in the U.S. Senate is just as damning. On the war, she made the wrong choice, at a time when not only Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy were opposing the war, but roughly 20 million Americans. Perhaps worse, she still refuses to admit that she was wrong, continuing to blame George W. Bush and accepting no responsibility herself.

On education, Hillary Clinton supported No Child Left Behind in 2001, calling it "landmark legislation."

Overall, my chief problem is that for the past seven years, Hillary Clinton has been one of the most powerful Democrats in Washington, but she's just now getting into "the solutions business." She's had ample time to introduce and pass solutions to many of the pressing issues in this campaign. Instead, here's the most recent compilation of Hillary Clinton's legislative accomplishments I can find:

Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site
Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month
Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor
Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall
Name courthouse after James L. Watson
Name post office after John A. O'Shea
Designate August 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day
Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day
Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death
Congratulate the Syracuse University Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship
Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program
Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda
Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death
Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.
Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11
Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
Assist landmine victims in other countries
Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care
Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the Wilderness Preservation System

Hillary Clinton "solutions" 1-15 speak for themselves. 9/11 related measures #16 & #17 probably could have passed by themselves. That leaves Hillary Clinton having pressed for and achieved three solutions in seven years.

Again, Senator Clinton, welcome to the "solutions" business.

New Mexico: Results are In, Mixed Bag for Clinton

2008-02-14T16:03:00.000-08:00

Results are in, and while Clinton edged out Obama by 2,000 votes, picking up one more delegate, there's good news for Obama.

According to CNN exit polls, Obama picked up 41% of the Latino vote under 60.

Clinton maintained a 70% to 28% lead among Latinos 60 and over.

Obama also won White voters overwhelmingly, scoring big among white voters under 45 AND over 60, while maintaining a slight edge among white voters 45-59.

Clinton Debate Doublespeak

2008-02-14T15:08:00.000-08:00

It's typical Clinton doublespeak for Hillary to demand a debate in Wisconsin so that voters can find out where they stand on the issues...

...WHILE HILLARY CAMPAIGNS IN TEXAS.

Sen. Clinton, if you want voters in Wisconsin to know where you stand on the issues, try campaigning there.

You can see Obama's response to Clinton's ad here.

Obama's Coattails Benefit Democrats in U.S. Senate

2008-02-12T21:27:00.000-08:00

Congressional Quarterly identifies 24 "battleground states" in the U.S. Senate this year. Six currently held by Democrats and 18 currently held by Republicans.

The Presidential primaries have sucked so much air out of news coverage, no one is talking about the second most important political battle. At stake is whether Democrats can gain a working majority in the Senate, or whether Republicans will still have the power to play obstructionists to a Democratic president.

What really interests me is that Barack Obama has faired much better than Hillary Clinton in the 17 battleground states that have had primaries so far. Obama has won 11 of those contests, and his combined margin of victory/loss in all 17 states is + 13 percent.

Moreover, if you look at how Democrats are casting their votes in the 11 true primary states, Obama beat Clinton by more than 532,000 votes.

In those same states, there have been 1.5 million more ballots cast for Obama than McCain.

If super-delegates are trying to figure out what's best for them, what's best for the party, what's best for the causes that they believe in -- no matter what state they live in -- they need to think about what candidate is going to help them overcome the GOP filibuster in the Senate. Because if Republicans still have the filibuster in the Senate, John McCain might as well be President.

Hillary Clinton Says Reagan, Bush Among Her "Favorite Presidents"

2008-01-23T15:34:00.000-08:00

I kid not, from Hillary Clinton's own website, in a news release dated last month:

"Her [Hillary's] list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks."

"As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list."

- Salmon Press, NH, 12/12/2007

The Only Constant in Politics is Change

2008-01-08T01:48:00.000-08:00

Take this quiz.

Who said (no googling):

CHANGE:

"The price of doing the same old thing is far higher than the price of change."

UNITY:

"For too long we've been told about 'us' and 'them.' Each and every election we see a new slate of arguments and ads telling us that 'they' are the problem, not 'us.' But there can be no 'them' in America. There's only us."

"Americans long to be united. After 9/11, we all just wanted to be one nation. Not a single American on September the 12, 2001, cared who won the next presidential election."

HOPE

"America just works better when more people have a chance to live their dreams."

?????

Need a hint?

"I still believe in a place called Hope, a place called America."

That's right. Bill Clinton.

In fact, Bill Clinton ran his entire campaign in 1992 around the central themes of Change and Hope, a vision of the future that united Americans, however briefly.

Sure, Clinton talked about his record as Governor, and he talked about specific things he would do if elected, to some degree. But these were campaign accessories. More people remember Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" than the details of Clinton's resume or his platform.

Then, amazingly, Clinton managed to run for re-election again in 1996 again as the agent of change, with a central campaign message about "Building a Bridge to the 21st Century." He was able to capture the Change mantle because his GOP opponent was a Conservative Dinosaur who was completely out of touch with every day Americans.

My favorite Bob Dole lines were railing against the teachers unions (surely not one of the normal topics of discussion around American dinner tables), and the time he bellowed out "Where's the outrage?!?" to a rally audience. Gee Bob, maybe if you weren't so out of touch, you could find it yourself, instead of having to ask for directions.

That's how Hillary Clinton sounds now. Whether she likes it our not, Hillary is the incumbent and Obama is the challenger. She represents the past and more of it. Obama represents a different future.

CLINTON V. CLINTON

What I liked most about Bill Clinton is that in 1995, when he looked like he was in a politically impossible position, he had the courage to stand up to Newt Gingrich's attempt to cut federal funding for school lunch programs, not out of politics but out of principle. In retrospect, standing up to Gingrich restored Clinton in a way and was politically smart, but at the time it was a gutsy move, but it was the right move.

What I least like about Hillary Clinton is that when she was in a politically impossible position, with George Bush's high popularity and much of the nation still on pins and needles, she did not stand up on principle. I don't believe that she didn't understand or didn't know that she was helping to lead our nation into war, under a pretext that was shaky at best, under overthrew longstanding principles of the use of military might. It may have seemed like the politically smart thing to do at the time, but in retrospect, if Hillary hadn't cast that vote, she'd probably be the Democratic nominee already.

WHAT NEXT FOR HILLARY

Hillary Rodham Clinton can try to change the subject back to experience, but that hasn't been working so well. Casting herself as change plus experience hasn't worked to well either, nor has redefining herself as the real change.

Now, she can try to tear Obama down over the next four weeks. George H.W. Bush tried to tear down Bill, and we all saw how well that worked. This election is not about who inhaled and who didn't. And as Clinton proved in 1992, it isn't about resumes or platforms either.

A real Catch-22.

Hillary Clinton is a great partisan, and if she really cares as much about beating the Republicans as we all know she does, she should recognize that Barack Obama's candidacy is the best thing that could happen to the Democratic Party, not attack him, and let the chips fall where they may on Feb. 5th. He can unite Democrats, Independents, and even moderate Republicans. Next to her (but probably not for long), he's the best fundraiser in the country, and a much better campaigner. By his very persona, Obama embodies the hope and future of the Democratic Party and the nation.

By supporting Obama, she can reinvent her own public image, and would be next in line to assume Ted Kennedy's role as the conscience of the Democratic Party in the U.S. Congress. And that's not such a bad gig.

BTW, if you want to read a great story, read Jonathan Alter's "Obama: Bill Clinton's Real Heir" in the next edition of Newsweek.

What's Wrong with This Picture?

2007-07-29T07:04:00.000-07:00

Given the state of things in Illinois and across the nation, I find it a little ironic that the Bush administration is prosecuting Michael Moore for helping 9-11 emergency workers get the health care they need.

What's wrong with this picture?

SiCKO offers something for everyone

2007-06-22T09:03:00.000-07:00

I was lucky enough to snag a ticket for an advanced screening of Michael Moore's new documentary on the American health care industry last night, with a post-film Q&A with the director, and I have to say this is probably Moore's best film yet and definitely worth seeing.

The main strength of SiCKO is that it offers a balanced view, with something for everyone, without sacrificing the truth. Moore eases off the vitriol as well, and while the film has lots of serious, heart-wrenching, "how can we live with a system that is so cruel" moments, it also has its funny, light-hearted, and warm moments, and a couple of moments that were punctuated by applause from the audience -- made up largely of doctors and nurses.

Long time proponents of universal care will find that the movie largely restates things they've always known: treating health care as a profit-driven commodity makes about as much sense as treating police protection, fire protection, or adoption as profit-driven commodities.

But for independents and conservatives, the film is a real eye-opener. There's a great montage of clips of Hillary Clinton, cowering in flowery dresses and acting like anything but a future President in the wake of the defeat of her health care plan (I loved the scene with Big Bird). There's an interview with a Conservative Party member from Canada -- who looks like he could just as easily be golfing in Wilmette -- sharing his experiences with both the American and Canadian health care systems. And there's a great interview with one of the many doctors who "suffers" under Great Britain's Socialized Health Care System. That is if you can consider living in a $1 million four-bedroom flat in London's posh Greenwich neighborhood, with a family of three, driving an Audi, and pulling down $200,000 a year "suffering." Which, BTW, he didn't.

For me, the film pointed out serious flaws in Governor Blagojevich's "Illinois Covered" proposal, which relies on private insurance companies to deliver health care to the middle class. As the film points out, HMO's were founded 35 years ago on the premise that the way to make money is to deny people coverage for care, and that's how they continue to operate until this day. The film documents how one insurance company simply ran out the clock on one of it's insureds. Denying his claim and tying it up in red tape for so long -- laughingly calling a simple bone marrow transplant for his cancer "experimental" -- until he finally died. Guess what? Insurance companies pay nothing when you die.

Lt. Governor Pat Quinn was there, perhaps someone should ask him what he thought.

On the other hand, the film does offer some intermediate steps that lawmakers could take to improve the current system without replacing it all together. Chief among them: end the insurance company practice of setting quotas and providing bonuses for denying claims.

Moore said afterward that he hopes the film will serve as a tipping point in the debate over universal care in America, much as "An Inconvenient Truth" tipped the deb over global warming (the films share the same editor, ). The Tribune covered his pre-film rally in Millenium Park here.

I'm a little less optimistic than Moore, noting that the Consumer's Union called universal health care "imminent" back in the 1930's, and if the Great Depression couldn't tip this country toward universal care, I'm not sure one film will.

However, Moore's film could jump start the debate, and for that reason, folks should go see it when it opens for limited release in Chicago this weekend. Listings here.

A Solid Platform

2006-08-10T13:38:00.000-07:00

Help me out: is that a dogface or monkeyface on the governor?

Shame on Joe Lieberman

2006-08-09T05:22:00.000-07:00

When DFA candidate Christine Cegelis lost the Democratic Primary in IL-6 to Tammy Duckworth, I was one of the loudest voices shaming Christine Cegelis to clearly and unequivically endorse Duckworth. To her credit, Cegelis did.

That's why I'm going to add my two cents about what's going on in Connecticut now, because I don't think we can tell progressives that they are welcome in the Democratic Party as long as they are civil enough to lose, and because I think that if Lieberman follows through on his pledge to run in Connecticut, it will divert progressive resources from Illinois. And if Lieberman should happen to win, it could permanently drive out the new progressives who have been entering the party. Heck, if I was them, I'd start my own party too.

So, let me say it, loud and clear: Shame on Joe Lieberman.

Joe, you lost the primary, fair and square. You had a chance to make your case, your opponent made his, and the voters decided it was time for a change. Your on the wrong side of history, and it's too late to change the outcome of the election. But it's not too late to shape how you'll be remembered in the history books. Show some respect for the process, show some respect for the party you still claim to be a part of, and take your loss like a man.

P.S. Ned Lamont did not polarize America. George Bush, the guy you seem to like so much, did that, everytime he chose the right wing over the mainstream, every time he shut Democrats out of the process. No, Ned Lamont didn't polarize America, but when America was divided into the rightwing and the mainstream, the billionaires and the middle class, the insiders and the political shut-outs, Ned Lamont knew which side he was on. Which side are you on, Joe?

Ring Theory

2006-07-28T08:40:00.000-07:00

Part of the argument made by Mayor Daley and other opponents of Chicago's Big Box Ordinance is that WalMart and Target will simply ring Chicago with stores.

I call it the "Ring Theory," and I'm not buying it.

What the politicians and pundits advancing this theory tend to forget is that in the real world (the world that exists beyond the doors of the Chicago City Council floor), these two companies are fierce competitors. One of them wants to be the dominant super-retailer in Chicago, and that guy would love to creep right into this market as soon as the other makes a commitment to never enter.

WalMart has the deeper pockets, and WalMart would love to sucker Target into boycotting Chicago. WalMart has much more at stake here, because a victory against WalMart in Chicago would embolden WalMart opponents across the country. But as long as WalMart can continue to hide behind Target, this debate won't be about what a nasty corporate citizen WalMart is, how crappy its products are, and why would we ever want a WalMart in our neighborhoods in the first place?

Speaking of which, the biggest patsies in all of this have to be all of the other dues-paying members of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association. Don't you guys realize that when WalMart opens, your doors will soon be closed? Talk about acting against your own self-interest.

Here's my advice to Target: after Mayor Daley refuses to veto the measure, go ahead and file your frivilous lawsuit. Declare that you're certain you'll win in court; so certain in fact, that you're going to move forward with your plans to open new stores here.

Don't be a Hater

2006-07-27T12:46:00.000-07:00

Ran across these on one of the Conservative GOP blogs.

These images comparing Barack Obama to Osama Bin Laden are an insult to the men and women risking their lives in the War on Terror in Afghanistan, and its this kind of stuff that gives Republicans a bad name.

I have two obvious follow-up questions for the Republicans who think this is so darn funny: how long before our Republican president captures Public Enemy #1, and how many vacation days has he taken since Sept. 11th, 2001? Because if I were President, there would be no vacation days until Bin Laden were captured.

O Brother, Where Art Thou?

2006-04-01T05:09:00.000-08:00

Illinois Attorney General candidate Stu Umholtz is in the news -- finally. Although an online search didn't find any campaign-related stories regarding Umholtz, he is making the news in his role as Tazewell State's Attorney, in a local controversy that's got it all: gambling, guns, corruption, and a no-kill dog shelter.

In his pre-Election campaign report, Umholtz reported having just $3,517.71 cash on-hand. He actually raised more in signs than he did in cash.

However, two weeks before the election, Umholtz reported $2,000 from Team Gidwitz. In case you're wondering, that $2,000 got Ron Gidwitz fourth place, with 624 votes, or 6%.

Please use this thread to report any Umholtz-related campaign activities. Or Bigfoot sightings.

This is Progress?

2006-04-01T04:57:00.000-08:00

From The Economist:
(subscription required)

Murder is certain

Mar 23rd 2006 | BAGHDAD AND RAMADI
From The Economist print edition

Three years after America invaded, Iraq is as violent as ever

...The police, under the Ministry of Interior, are in a much worse state [than the army] —and it is they who are expected eventually to quell the insurgency. So far, 123,000 have been trained and equipped (a total of 194,000 has been authorised). But they are of wildly mixed quality, with some of them barely trained. Worse, the best units, including several paramilitary brigades, have been infiltrated by various brutish Shia militias, and have launched reprisal attacks against Sunni civilians.
In November, American troops freed 123 famished Sunnis, some of whom had been tortured, from an interior-ministry basement in Baghdad. Coalition troops have also been attacked by the boys in blue, with several especially lethal IED attacks against British troops in Basra believed to be the work of rogue policemen there. In western Baghdad last month, shortly after the bombing of a sacred Shia shrine in Samarra, two American soldiers were sliced into pieces by an IED laid, during a curfew, within 50 yards of a police checkpoint.

Another great article from The Economist, ironically the #1 read on Air Force One. If you're not a subscriber, you should be.

Brady: Fast and Loose with the Truth

2005-12-08T09:05:00.000-08:00

Gubernatorial hopeful Bill Brady was in Macomb yesterday. He criticized Governor Blagojevich for having not visited Macomb as Governor. A good point, but Brady should have stopped there.

Instead, he went on to criticize Blagojevich on job creation, a hot topic in Western Illinois. According to The Peoria Journal Star, Brady blamed Blagojevich for the fact Illinois has lost 200,000-300,000 jobs. A great soundbite. Only one problem: it's simply not true.

According to the U.S. Dept. of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics, Illinois has created over 200,000 private sector jobs since Blagojevich became Governor, with 4.866 million jobs when he took over in January, 2003 and a preliminary 5.068 million jobs as of Sept., 2005.

And while the Illinois Chamber of Commerce's Doug Whitley likes to rail that Illinois has lost 200,000 manufacturing jobs over the last five years, what Whitley fails to mention is that 166,000 of those jobs were lost while the Republicans were in charge. Illinois started 1999 with 900,000 manufacturing jobs, and by the time Democrats took over in 2003, we were down to 734,000. At last report, Illinois had 692,000 manufacturing jobs.

In fact, if you look at the boom years of the nineties, when all of America was prospering, you'll see that the Edgar administration (of which Whitley was a part) did very little to create manufacturing jobs, with an annual growth rate of well below 1%.

Numbers don't lie, my friends. But Brady does.

P.S. Sorry, I tried to put Bureau tables in, but they were too tough to read. Don't take my word for it. Go here to create your own.

Will County Pushes to Execute Retarded Man

2005-12-07T05:48:00.000-08:00

From CBS-2's AP Wire:

Will County prosecutors plan to appeal a judge's ruling that a murder defendant is mentally retarded and ineligible for the death penalty....

....Circuit Judge Gerald Kinney ruled last month that Ausby is mentally retarded, meaning he can't be sentenced to death if found guilty. Kinney noted testimony by two psychologists who determined Ausby's IQ to be between 64 and 79.

This is not Will County's first death penalty controversy. During the 2004 elections, State's Attorney Jeff Tomczak was accused of attempting to railroad Kevin Fox in the murder of his daughter, Riley, in the months leading up to the election. Fox confessed after hours of interrogation, but was later exonerated by DNA evidence - evidence which Tomczak sat on through Election Day. Tomczak is now the subject of a lawsuit.

I'm not excusing Ausby's actions -- but I can't explain either the actions of Will County State's Attorney Jeff Glasgow. Life in prison without chance of parole would serve justice, but it apparently doesn't feed Will County's thirst for revenge. God help Will County.

Did Umholtz Follow the Law?

2005-12-06T12:10:00.000-08:00

Rich Miller stirs the pot today with GOP hopeful Stu Umholtz.

Stu wants to be our next Attorney General.

However, as I first noted back in November on CapitolFax Blog, Umholtz closed down his campaign committee in 2000 and hasn't filed a report with the State Board of Elections in over five years.

Anxious readers want to know:

Is Umholtz the worst fundraiser to ever run for statewide office, or did he ignore the law?

Quigley Proposes Countywide Ban as City Nears Smoking Votes

2005-12-05T23:53:00.000-08:00

As the Chicago City Council approaches a rare divided vote on a proposal to eliminate secondhand smoke from public places, Cook County Commissioner Mike Quigley is announcing plans to make the ban on involuntary smoke countywide.

Mike Flannery reports that ban opponents, including the Billy Goat Tavern's Sam Cianis, are still trying to block the citywide effort.

Meanwhile, the Tribune says that some Chicago alderman are scrambling desperately to split the baby, including leading ban opponent Burt Natarus, who has a competing proposal that would exempt bars.

According to the Sun-Times, Natarus is the leading fundraiser on the City Council when it comes to tobacco industry allies, with $151,830 pocketed recently.

But the idea of a compromise is a no-go with the ordinance's supporters, who believe the facts and public opinion are on their side:

Joel Africk, CEO of the American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago, said his group could not choose to protect only some people.

If Chicago had gone smoke-free in 1995 when an earlier Smith-like ordinance was proposed, data from other smoking ban cities suggest that 8,000 deaths here could have been prevented, Africk said.

Natarus's Ban Light will be voted on Tuesday morning before the City's Finance Committee, meanwhile ban supporters are hopeful they will have the 26 votes necessary when the American Cancer Society's version comes before the full City Council on Wednesday.

George Ryan Endorses Topinka?

2005-12-05T23:44:00.000-08:00

This closer made me giggle, from the SJ-R:

He [George Ryan] predicted the state could be in for an exciting governor's race with Republican Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka as the front-runner in a crowded GOP primary field vying to take on Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
"I think he could have a lot of trouble with Judy," Ryan said of Blagojevich.

Thanks but no thanks for the endorsement, I'm sure Topinka says.

Central IL Says 'No Thanks' to Wal-Mart

2005-11-23T11:09:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, I wrote on Capitol Fax Blog that people are starting to wake-up to the fact that Wal-Mart has become an economic parasite on America.

Add the people of Lincoln, Illinois to the list of folks catching on, says the State Journal Register.

In a surprise vote Tuesday, the Lincoln City Council rejected a $600,000 taxpayer subsidy to build a proposed Super Wal-Mart Center by a vote of 5-4. The Super Wal-Mart would have directly competed with local grocers.

The new Super Wal-Mart would have been cited right next to an existing Wal-Mart which, of course, would be vacated.

Clueless City Council member Alderman O.V. "Buzz" Busby defended Wal-Mart's gift package:

As for the effect on two existing grocery stores, Lincoln IGA and Kroger, Busby said, "I believe in the free enterprise system. Let the best man win."

Earth to Buzz: It's not "free" enterprise when Wal-Mart gets a $600,000 leg-up on the competition.

Expect Wal-Mart to try to muscle through a re-vote in the coming months, but Lincoln stands tall today.

Not bad for a "Hellhole"

2005-11-21T17:14:00.000-08:00

Site Selection Magazine has once again named Illinois one of the top states in the country to do business, contradicting efforts by the U.S. Chamber to portray the state as a "hellhole."

The annual survey by one of the nation's premiere business guides ranked Illinois 13th in its 2005 Top State Business Climates.

The survey did indicate that the U.S. Chamber's sustained campaign to malign Illinois' reputation might be hurting Illinois' economy. Despite no significant changes in Illinois law between 2004 and 2005, Illinois fell from 14th to 22nd in an opinion poll of corporate real estate executives. Still, not bad for a "hellhole."

The poll rankings:

Return of the Jedi?

2005-11-20T17:28:00.000-08:00

The (Chicago) Reader's Ben Joravsky provides an in-depth analysis of the Illinois Senate vote to defeat Marty Cohen as ICC Chair.

When Cohen's appointment was announced, reformers felt that same rush audiences felt when Luke Skywalker was bearing down on the Death Star.

Then, they were left speechless when the Empire struck back, hacking his nomination to pieces.

Now, according to Joravsky, the rebels may be organizing a counter-offensive, led by Lt. Governor Pat Quinn, who had this to say about Cohen's likely replacement:

“I don’t know if the senate’s going to muster up the votes to do again what they did to Marty,” says Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn. “It’s a real shame what happened to Marty. I believe he would have made an outstanding chairman. But this is only the opening round.”

It appears there will be political fall-out as well:
Madeline Talbott, executive director of the community group Illinois ACORN, say her organization is spreading word of the Cohen vote in voter registration drives in Hendon’s district.
Illinois ACORN is closely aligned with SEIU, which has roughly 100,000 members in Cook County - 4 out of 5 are African American.

Republicans' Plan to Cut Medicare Funding Squeezes Doctors

2005-11-20T16:42:00.000-08:00

It appears that Illinois doctors might need to take their attention off of Springfield and spend a little more time worrying about Washington.

While doctors were busy marching on Springfield, the Bush administration was busy drafting plans to cut Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors by 4.4%, according to the NY Times:

The Bush administration is headed for a clash with the nation's doctors over a federal plan to cut their Medicare fees by 4.4 percent next year, even as the government tries to measure the quality of care they provide...

...Medicare's trustees said the formula would produce cuts totaling roughly 25 percent from 2006 to 2011, while doctors' costs are expected to rise 15 percent."

But the Administration says not to worry, the cuts will encourage doctors to practice not defensive medicine, but offensive medicine, performing procedures they wouldn't normally perform so they can bill Medicare more:
"Moreover, they (the Administration) said, doctors often respond to such cuts by performing more services, so their income does not necessarily fall."
Meanwhile, the AP reports that one doctor in rural North Dakota is being paid in jelly. I'm not kidding.

So, someone remind me again what's wrong with Dr. Quentin Young's plan to provide coverage for every man, woman and child in America for a fraction of what we are paying now?