This act corrected serious problems with the Foster Care and Adoption system in the United States. Specifically, it corrected a number of unanticipated problems a previous law passed in 1980 caused which deterred the placement and adoption of children with special needs...it also assures that the welfare of the child will be paramount in all decisions, with the goal being that children of abusive and violent parents will be protected from that abuse...

http://www.cwla.org/advocacy/asfapl105-89s...

Hillary believes this to be the satisfying achievement of her time as First Lady



http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/fir...


The act appears to be working according to this study published in 2003

Her excellent ratings from most groups are usually poo-pooed, so now that we have found some people like, thought I would get it out there....show what a radical "right winger" she is...

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Trust for Historic Preservation 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Children's Defense Fund 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Association of University Women 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Organization for Women 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group 91 percent in 2006.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group 100 percent in 2005

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 100 percent from 1988-2003 (Senate) or 1991-2003 (House).

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Public Health Association 80 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Service Employees International Union 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 93 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers 84 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 88 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Federation of Government Employees 83 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Committee for an Effective Congress 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 100 percent in 2005.

According to the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score's calculations, in 2005, Senator Clinton voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 80 percent of the Senators.

According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy's calculations, in 2005, Senator Clinton voted more liberal on social policy issues than 83 percent of the Senators.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Alliance for Retired Americans 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 92 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Bread for the World 100 percent in 2003-2004.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Partnership for the Homeless 100 percent in 2003-2004.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_cat...

Obviously there are idealogical differences in the party...but if you look at them in comparison to differences with the Republican Party as currently cinstituted...they are pretty minor.

The divide is about method and message.

We can have debates here over say National Health Insurance, and we will get a debate that appears idealogical, but really it is more about a view of the process we should go through to achieve our goals.

For example, if you pinned down those not in favor of pushing a single-payer plan, you would probably find that most of them would actually welcome such a system. And if you pinned down someone in favor of pushing such a plan, they would probably admit that passage is probably not possible in the current climate.

The divide between Dennis Kucinich (and many others) and Hillary Clinton (and many others) is not so much about idealogy as about method and message. Kucinich believes it is important to get out our position on a single payer plan, and stick to it. Do not compromise, but take an unwavering position and bring the country to us. Someone like Hillary Clinton would welcome a single payer plan, but believes the country is not ready to accept such a bold plan, and so the best way to get there is to nibble at it one piece at a time, with the view that it is ok to compromise as long as some progress is made.

I take the latter view, but I recognize the value of the former. Dennis Kucinich is a chest thumper -and I am not using that as a pejorative - someone who boldly articulates a goal, and sticks to that goal without compromise. He believes it is important to convince the country of the correctness of that vision. Paul Wellstone was the same way...I admire both men.

However, men like Kucinich are not viable in a national election. The type of person that is going to be elected is more the Hillary Clinton type (just an example, not looking for a Hillary electibility debate). Someone who is going to work within the system and is gonna compromise.

There is nothing wrong with that. Every great President started out that way, recognizing the politicial limits of what they were proposing. But, every one of those great Presidents had someone like Dennis Kucinich pushing them down the path, and articulating where we were going to ultimately end up.

Abraham Lincoln, hardly an abolitionist ultimately freed the slaves, pushed along by people such as Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth. But his correct political instincts told him he could not advocate that position until the right time. FDR, with an insensitivity to race had Eleanor to bring him along, and thus began the identification with the Democratic Party among African Americans. JFK and LBJ had MLK laying the groundwork for civil rights legislation and the Great Society...

In fact I would argue a President cannot be truly great without such a presence...and I would argue we cannot be viable electorally, or as an effective governing party without both types of people.

When in American history has this been true? In fact, in the darkest and most fragile of times, Americans have consistently rejected radical political or economic solutions to crisis....

In the early Republic, when political tensions in many ways were higher than they are today, when our institutions were new, and change could have come easier, radical reorientation was rejected, and an economy and tradition based largely on the English model was adopted. Hamilton and Jefferson were mortal enemies, their contest centered on the type of country we would become - one based on manufacture and market forces, or one, more romantic, based on the virtous agrarian. Hamilton won that contest and is largely responsible for the American nature of our economic structure. Even Jefferson, as early as his Presidential years had largely made peace with the new structure.

In the 1830's when the power relationship between branches of the governemnt were still being defined, Andrew Jackson, clinging to the Jeffersonian notion of an economy based on the yeoman farmer, and through unprecedented use of the veto power, killed the Second Bank of the U.S. on constitutional grounds, and on the grounds that the institution represented a dangerous conglomeration of economic power in the hands of elite easterners, echoing many of the same criticisms we hear today about runaway corporate power. The resulting restriction in credit, threw the country into a serious depression. Jackson won the fight, and killed the bank. It had the lasting affect of increasing executive power, but it did not reorient the basic nature of our economy or our political system. The Federal reserve system was eventually formed, and it hardened the nature of the two party system.

The Civil War might not only have ripped apart our country, but its basic political and economic institutions; it did not. In the subsequent economic turmoil, with the South transformed into a third world economy, juxtaposed against an increasingly prosperous north, populist movements gained some traction, but fizzled out, the American people again rejecting radical political or economic change.

The era of the robber barons who took that prosperity to excess, killing workers rights and starkly increasing the distance between rich and poor, followed up by the severe depression starting in 1893 might also have induced movement toward this type of change, but it did not.

And of course the Great Depression, when corporations ran amuck, and rampant, unchecked speculation threw this country into its largest crisis ever...if there was a time when a fundamental reorienting of our economic and political structure might have taken place, that was it. And indeed the Communist Party and other populist and socialist organizations made local inroads. Huey Long and Father Coughlin gained national followings. But yet again, rather than move us toward a more radical solution, the American people, in their most desperate hour since the founding of the republic, put their trust in existing structures to solve these problems, and Franklin Roosevelt solved them.

The idealogical differences in parties has always been very narrow in the United States, and given numerous opportunities to change that, the American people have rejected a movement to radical solutions to serious problems.

There is no evidence, none, that things have changed. A radical reorienting of the political structure on the order of what you appear to be advocating is not going to happen. Change toward a more accountable government through political reform and a re-balance of power between the citizenry and corporate America is not going to happen by advocating radical, short term change. That course of action will be rejected by the American people as it always has been. It will happen in very small and incremental steps.

In my view, voting for the Democratic candidate moves us in the right direction, no matter how small the step...and that is why I care whether there is a D after the name of the candidate I vote for.

First is this on Kos about Ben Nelson...



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/30/14...


Then the former Kansas State Republican chairman switches to the Democratic Party



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...

To me these are excellent signs of progress...and rather than engage in handwringing ove rthe motivation, we ought to applaud these developments. It not only strengthens us, but is a public relations blow to the Republican Party. After years of people switching the other way, the pendulum seems to have swung our way now!

He is looking down the road to when Democrats are competitive everywhere - bothe geographically, and philosophically. He is looking to the day when Democrats don't have to cherry pick their way to an electoral majority...

Going on the 700 club was a stroke of genius...

Unless we start cracking the strangle hold the Republicans have on certain sectors in society, we are going to be at a disadvantage. I am not suggesting that we will make huge inroads...but if 2% peel away from the evangelical community (Jimmy Carter took a majority of the evangelical vote in 1976 btw), then it will be worth it

He is fighting the war on all fronts...

As a member of the WalMart board of directors, Hillary CLinton used her position to urge WalMart to practice diversity, to track the hiring of more women and minorities, and to address environmental concerns...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060310/ap_on_...

I'm gonna pull the scab off the wound!!!

There have been several posts recently saying not only is Bill Clinton a war criminal, but that he should be brought to trial at the world court for his misdeeds, and there was a recent thread featuring the two students who heckled President Clinton recently calling him a war criminal.

Apparently it is not against the rules to speculate whether Clinton is a war criminal as none of these threads have been pulled as far as I can see...and none of them have been pulled as flamebait.

So here goes...it is a simple question:

For his actions or inactions in Iraq, Rwanda, and Kosovo...do you believe that Bill Clinton is a War Criminal, and should he be brought to trial - Yes or No!!!

Obviously I am voting a resounding no