On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted No and blocked Speaker Nancy Pelosi's latest proposal to throw another $165 billion into the occupation of Iraq. This happened in large part because ordinary citizens pressured their representatives to vote No. In the final count 149 Democrats voted No, 132 Republicans voted Present (neither Yes nor No), 12 members did not vote, and only 141 voted Yes. Here's the roll call:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll328.xm...

While the Republicans had less of an impact than the Democrats, the corporate media is quickly giving the Republicans credit for blocking the vote. This is nonsense. This vote was blocked by 149 Democrats finally - FINALLY - doing the right thing. We should thank them immediately. We should thank each other for having moved them. We should contact the media and praise them. We should have flowers delivered to their offices on Friday.

Now, the possibility remains that we're being played for fools, and that many of those who voted No intend to make a lot of noise about it and then turn around and try to quietly vote Yes on a different version cooked up by Pelosi or on a version that comes back from the Senate for final approval. But that's all the more reason to make a big giant humungous stink about how amazing it is and how grateful we are that 149 of our representatives FINALLY saw fit to represent us. If we can make this thing stick, we can end the killing and give birth to an opposition Party in one stroke.

In other news, the two separate amendments that went along with the war money did pass. One of them includes money for useful things like veterans care. It may fail in the Senate or in conference or cause a veto. The other restricts the war money to particular illegal activities while prohibiting its use for others. That one looks even more ridiculous than it originally did, because it's now restricting money that wasn't passed. These two amendments were passed by the Democrats, by the way. The Republicans are a minority and were decisive in none of the three votes.

John Edwards just endorsed Barack Obama. If Edwards' 19 delegates take his advice and vote for Obama, then Obama now has 1,620 pledged delegates to Clinton's 1,441. There are 189 delegates left to be pledged in remaining states. Clinton needs to win 184 of them (or 97 percent) in order to win, whereas Obama only needs 6 more delegates to put him over the top. To be clear, these are the numbers for pledged delegates, not including super delegates. Obama leads in that category as well, but I don't think anyone will or should stand for super delegates deciding an election.

There are, of course, states that have not yet voted. I'd love it if they could have a say in this thing. If it were up to me I would put every primary on one day in late October. It's not my fault that this particular race is over. It's not over in the way races are for candidates whom the corporate media hounds out of the race following one or two states. This one really is over.

Florida and Michigan are not included. The candidates did not compete in those states, and allowing them to do so now would involve a change in the rules mid-election, which seems highly unlikely.

Just as the Democratic primary has been over for several months, it's still over. Clinton cannot win. Period. She can only hope for an anti-democratic coup by Super Delegates that would destroy the Democratic Party. And she'd have to be delusional to even hope for THAT at this point.

So, why does the corporate media behave as if it's still a contest, and why does the independent media obediently fall into line? Presumably those two questions have two different answers.

When has any other candidate been kept on life-support by media corporations in this way? Hasn't the standard for dropping out always been - for every other candidate - the impossibility of winning, not actually having lost?

What can Clinton hope to gain from staying in other than hurting Obama's chances in order to avoid his running as an incumbent in 4 years?

And why is it so difficult for people to think for themselves and let the media and the Super Delegates and the Democratic Party know that WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH?

Don't believe me? Don't know how to do addition? Don't own a calculator? Here's a video of Chris Matthews admitting the media's role in this farce:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/32937

Here's how you can contact the DNC: 877-336-7200 or
http://www.democrats.org/contact.html

Wild Wonderful West Virginia may, when the last vote is counted (or tossed out) give Senator Clinton 18 pledged delegates and Senator Obama 10. It'll be pretty close to that, and if that's the final count, then the new totals will be Obama 1,602 and Clinton 1,440. There are 189 delegates left to be pledged. Of those, Clinton must win 176 of them, or 93 percent, in order to beat Obama. Obama, on the other hand, only needs to win 14 more delegates for the whole charade to be over. There are 103 delegates on the line next Tuesday in Kentucky and Oregon. There's not a single employee of any of the media outlets promoting this phony contest that believes Obama could possibly win fewer than 14 delegates in Kentucky and Oregon.

Just as it has been over for several months, it's still over.

The contest may be even more over than these numbers suggest. At least one pledged delegate (in Maryland) has said he will go against the voters of his state and switch his vote from Clinton to Obama.

John Edwards has 19 delegates, and he is expected to encourage them to back Obama.

Among super delegates Obama also has a majority.

But these are all types of delegates not chosen by voters. Among pledged delegates chosen by voters and caucus goers - that is, among the only delegates who should count - it's over.

Clinton cannot win. Period. She can only hope for an anti-democratic coup by Super Delegates that would destroy the Democratic Party. And she'd have to be delusional to even hope for THAT at this point.

So, why does the corporate media behave as if it's still a contest, and why does the independent media obediently fall into line? Presumably those two questions have two different answers.

When has any other candidate been kept on life-support by media corporations in this way? Hasn't the standard for dropping out always been - for every other candidate - the impossibility of winning, not actually having lost?

What can Clinton hope to gain from staying in other than hurting Obama's chances in order to avoid his running as an incumbent in 4 years?

And why is it so difficult for people to think for themselves and let the media and the Super Delegates and the Democratic Party know that WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH?

Don't believe me? Don't know how to do addition? Don't own a calculator? Here's a video of Chris Matthews admitting the media's role in this farce:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/32937

Here's how you can contact the DNC: 877-336-7200 or
http://www.democrats.org/contact.html

Former Republican Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee on Tuesday evening called George W. Bush the worst president in U.S. history and the occupation of Iraq the worst foreign tragedy in U.S. history. Chafee said Bush deserved to be impeached.

Chafee served in the U.S. Senate from 1999 to 2006 and credits his defeat in 2006 - as do most analysts - to his membership in the party of Bush and Cheney. In 2003 Chafee was the only Republican senator to vote against authorization to attack Iraq. Chafee and John McCain had been the only two Republican senators to vote against the first round of Bush tax cuts.

While Chafee is supporting Barack Obama for president, he said on Tuesday that the Democrats as well as the Republicans have moved too far to the right. Without any apparent bitterness, Chafee remarked that while voters got a new Senate and House in 2006, they didn't get any changes in policies out of it.

Chafee made his remarks on a radio show I hosted, the audio of which can be found at
http://www.thepeoplespeakradio.net/audio/2...

The discussion focused on Chafee's new book:
http://www.davidswanson.org/node/1245

Rep. Robert Wexler (Dem., Florida) has written a book, soon to be released, that is as different from most congress members' books as Wexler is from most congress members. He's titled it "Fire-Breathing Liberal: How I Learned to Survive (and Thrive) in the Contact Sport of Congress." Wexler is depicted on the cover with the Capitol in the background and his fists in the air.

Wexler is a fighter and a liberal, and - yes - one CAN be both. But Wexler, I think, is more of a fighter than a liberal. He's unusually willing to speak up and fight for controversial positions. He does so loudly and articulately, and he goes for the jugular. But I don't find in his book any passionate or deep liberal world view. In fact, at times, Wexler expresses viewpoints that I find disturbingly illiberal.

I would have titled the book "Fire-Breathing democrat." I made the 'd' lowercase on purpose. Wexler, far more than most members of Congress, appears to take the positions supported by his constituents. It is his constituents who turn out, more often than not, to be liberal. That Wexler listens to them so extensively and carefully and then acts on their wishes with a resolve and determination that can singe your eyebrows is what makes Wexler that rarest of Congress Members, a Democrat with a spine.

Wexler is not the only aggressive progressive in Congress. His most daring positions - on impeachment, on Iraq, on elections - are a step behind someone like Dennis Kucinich, who also pulls no punches. But Wexler has a voice in the media that is unique, I think, because his positions are not so far opposed to those of the corporate media that he's shut out, and because he likes a fight. In his book, he's smart enough to quote right-wing media attacks on himself rather then running from them. More Democrats do the wrong thing, more often, because they're afraid of media attacks, which would actually benefit them, than for any other reason.

Wexler's book is not an outline of his view for our political future. And it's not a campaign book laying out positions. While it is an autobiographical account of Wexler's years, thus far (since 1996), in Congress and a brief account of how he got there in the first place, the book's larger aim seems to be civic education. Wexler explains to readers how elections are won and lost, how positions are advanced, how compromises are made, and how bills actually become what nowadays passes for "law." This is an education that every American needs. "I want," Wexler writes, "to bring you inside the system in the hope that we can begin to change it together."

Some may recall seeing Wexler passionately defending against the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, or demanding a full recount of the 2000 election in Florida. Wexler represents the district with the butterfly ballots and the mythical "Jews for Buchanan" votes. Others may know of Wexler as the House Judiciary Committee Member who began pushing last year for Chairman John Conyers to take up the impeachment of Dick Cheney. Wexler did that, in large part, because his constituents asked him to, because he listens to them, and because he knows how to think in terms of offense. A Democratic Party that played offense would be holding impeachment hearings and forcing John McCain to defend every impeachable offense.

Others may recall seeing Wexler in recent months grill various Bush witnesses in committee hearings. Since Wexler came out for impeachment, his questioning of witnesses has out-shown most other representatives'. Just go to Youtube and look up Robert Wexler.

Wexler voted to authorize Bush to attack Iraq, and now says he regrets having done so. He claims to have believed the White House lies about Iraq, something I think could only be true if Wexler were far less intelligent than he is. In fact, Wexler claims that those who said there were no "weapons of mass destruction" prior to the invasion were just guessing and explains that it only became clear the White House was lying when no weapons were found. Actually, of course, that would only prove that the White House had been mistaken. While the evidence that Bush and Cheney and gang were lying has piled up over the years, it was abundant prior to the vote. Kucinich circulated an analysis of it to his colleagues. Here's the evidence, old and new:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/keydocuments

Wexler also claims not to have known that his constituents would disapprove of that vote. That seems possible. But Wexler now knows that his constituents want out of Iraq, and yet he has voted over and over again to fund the occupation, and he is not leading a fire-breathing charge against the funding bill now under consideration. I suspect that nonsensical "Don't defund the troops" sound-bytes and a misguided notion that militarism goes very well with a fighting image are weighing on Wexler more heavily than the opinions of his constituents this time (except perhaps the opinions of some campaign donors -- somehow these books manage to avoid the whole topic of donors).

Wexler was one of three Democrats to vote for immediate withdrawal when the Republicans proposed a parody of Rep. John Murtha's withdrawal proposal as a political stunt. Wexler is not afraid to stand alone or lead the way, but that doesn't mean he always does so when liberals might wish he would. Wexler likes to talk about withdrawal proposals as a way to "put pressure on the Iraqis," as if 80% of them don't want full withdrawal and haven't wanted it for years. Wexler writes of how much he loves "The Star Spangled Banner," a war song.

The real liberals in the House, on the other hand, don't know how to breathe fire. The current war funding bill has been arranged to include separate votes on the war money and on other matters. The Blue Dog (rightwing) Democrats joined with the Republicans last week to block a vote on the Rule to bring the whole thing up, because they opposed spending money on things like helping veterans and wanted to proceed only with creating more veterans. The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), of which Wexler is a member, has many more members than the Blue Dogs and could easily block the Rule in opposition to the war money if Speaker Pelosi finds a way to buy off the Blue Dogs. But CPC Co-Chairs Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, and Out of Iraq Caucus Chair Maxine Waters won't do it, and won't persuade enough progressives to fall in line if they do. They're not breathing enough fire.

Social Security is a topic where Wexler has breathed liberal fire. Of course, he bought into the pretense that Social Security is broken and in danger of collapsing, because outside of that frame one couldn't be part of the debate. But once he'd done that, he made the best move possible by releasing a detailed study of how Social Security could be fixed by eliminating the cap on payroll taxes that currently makes income above $90,000 tax free. And Wexler helped win the debate, holding off the destruction of Social Security, while the cap on taxes still remains.

Wexler's fire breathing also breathed new life into the impeachment movement last year, which has only stalled (though it's far from over) because too many Democrats on the Judiciary Committee refuse to listen to their constituents the way Wexler does. Publicly lobbying your colleagues and the chairman of your committee to do something that has been publicly opposed by your party's leaders, the other party's leaders, and the corporate media is almost unheard of. But Wexler did it when he asked his colleagues and ordinary citizens to join him in pushing for the start of impeachment hearings. Wexler made new and brilliant arguments for impeachment and presented a case that won over some congress members and a lot of other people. Thus far, 235,000 people have signed his petition at
http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com

Wexler has received a Backbone Award for his efforts:
http://www.backbonecampaign.org/storydetai...

Wexler is also rare in his willingness to talk about the stolen 2000 election as stolen and to openly admit the high probability that other elections have been stolen since the advent of DRE (electronic) voting machines and the misnamed Help America Vote Act. Yet, Wexler seems to believe that machines with "paper trails" or paper ballots scanned by optical machines solves the matter. In fact, collecting paper ballots or receipts is only valuable if they are counted, and optical scan machines have resulted in as many highly questionable elections as have DRE machines. I expect that when Wexler realizes this, or realizes that his constituents realize it, he'll advance the fight.

Wexler's book defends his positions and his past work, but it is not pretentious, and he includes plenty of accounts of failed efforts and questionable decisions as part of the civic education process. He also admits to compromising his positions under pressure. President Clinton persuaded Wexler to back a corporate trade measure ("fast track" negotiating) that he knew his constituents opposed and that he says he opposed. In return, Clinton gave Wexler opportunities to participate in foreign policy, especially in the Middle East.

Wexler's district is heavily Jewish, and he is Jewish. Throughout his book he never makes a distinction between the needs of the Israeli people, the plans of the Israeli government, and the desires of his Jewish constituents. All would appear to be one, had Wexler not already told us that his constituents opposed the war. Never does Wexler suggest that the Israeli government may be doing what is not in the best interests of the Israeli people, although the bulk of his book is a denunciation of a Republican-run U.S. government radically resisting the will of the American people. Perhaps Wexler's listening to his constituents could sometimes benefit from a finer grained analysis.

Wexler recounts his foreign travels on U.S. diplomatic business, including a meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad. He writes that Assad asked him whether Bush was crazy enough to attack Syria. Wexler said yes, and writes that he was grateful, in this instance, that such a thing was true. Fire breathing, yes. Liberal, no. Likely in the long run to improve the chances of peace? Of course not.

But Wexler also writes at some length about his involvement in efforts to aid Indonesians following the recent tsunami, and how aid and friendship build peace:

"I remember seeing a sign, a white bed sheet on which someone had written by hand in paint and magic marker, 'America is here. Where is Bin Laden?'"

Wexler understood this to be an expression of gratitude for American assistance. Wexler also worked with and nominated the President of Indonesia for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Wexler's book contains positions I don't like, but many more that I do, and it is a remarkably open and honest book for a politician to have put into the light of day.

If you want to know how Washington works, read this book.

If you want some hope that it can work better, watch what Robert Wexler does next.

If you want a representative who listens to you, retire to Palm Beach, Florida.

Rep. Robert Wexler (Dem., Florida) has written a book, soon to be released, that is as different from most congress members' books as Wexler is from most congress members. He's titled it "Fire-Breathing Liberal: How I Learned to Survive (and Thrive) in the Contact Sport of Congress." Wexler is depicted on the cover with the Capitol in the background and his fists in the air.

Wexler is a fighter and a liberal, and - yes - one CAN be both. But Wexler, I think, is more of a fighter than a liberal. He's unusually willing to speak up and fight for controversial positions. He does so loudly and articulately, and he goes for the jugular. But I don't find in his book any passionate or deep liberal world view. In fact, at times, Wexler expresses viewpoints that I find disturbingly illiberal.

I would have titled the book "Fire-Breathing democrat." I made the 'd' lowercase on purpose. Wexler, far more than most members of Congress, appears to take the positions supported by his constituents. It is his constituents who turn out, more often than not, to be liberal. That Wexler listens to them so extensively and carefully and then acts on their wishes with a resolve and determination that can singe your eyebrows is what makes Wexler that rarest of Congress Members, a Democrat with a spine.

Wexler is not the only aggressive progressive in Congress. His most daring positions - on impeachment, on Iraq, on elections - are a step behind someone like Dennis Kucinich, who also pulls no punches. But Wexler has a voice in the media that is unique, I think, because his positions are not so far opposed to those of the corporate media that he's shut out, and because he likes a fight. In his book, he's smart enough to quote right-wing media attacks on himself rather then running from them. More Democrats do the wrong thing, more often, because they're afraid of media attacks, which would actually benefit them, than for any other reason.

Wexler's book is not an outline of his view for our political future. And it's not a campaign book laying out positions. While it is an autobiographical account of Wexler's years, thus far (since 1996), in Congress and a brief account of how he got there in the first place, the book's larger aim seems to be civic education. Wexler explains to readers how elections are won and lost, how positions are advanced, how compromises are made, and how bills actually become what nowadays passes for "law." This is an education that every American needs. "I want," Wexler writes, "to bring you inside the system in the hope that we can begin to change it together."

Some may recall seeing Wexler passionately defending against the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, or demanding a full recount of the 2000 election in Florida. Wexler represents the district with the butterfly ballots and the mythical "Jews for Buchanan" votes. Others may know of Wexler as the House Judiciary Committee Member who began pushing last year for Chairman John Conyers to take up the impeachment of Dick Cheney. Wexler did that, in large part, because his constituents asked him to, because he listens to them, and because he knows how to think in terms of offense. A Democratic Party that played offense would be holding impeachment hearings and forcing John McCain to defend every impeachable offense.

Others may recall seeing Wexler in recent months grill various Bush witnesses in committee hearings. Since Wexler came out for impeachment, his questioning of witnesses has out-shown most other representatives'. Just go to Youtube and look up Robert Wexler.

Wexler voted to authorize Bush to attack Iraq, and now says he regrets having done so. He claims to have believed the White House lies about Iraq, something I think could only be true if Wexler were far less intelligent than he is. In fact, Wexler claims that those who said there were no "weapons of mass destruction" prior to the invasion were just guessing and explains that it only became clear the White House was lying when no weapons were found. Actually, of course, that would only prove that the White House had been mistaken. While the evidence that Bush and Cheney and gang were lying has piled up over the years, it was abundant prior to the vote. Kucinich circulated an analysis of it to his colleagues. Here's the evidence, old and new:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/keydocuments

Wexler also claims not to have known that his constituents would disapprove of that vote. That seems possible. But Wexler now knows that his constituents want out of Iraq, and yet he has voted over and over again to fund the occupation, and he is not leading a fire-breathing charge against the funding bill now under consideration. I suspect that nonsensical "Don't defund the troops" sound-bytes and a misguided notion that militarism goes very well with a fighting image are weighing on Wexler more heavily than the opinions of his constituents this time (except perhaps the opinions of some campaign donors -- somehow these books manage to avoid the whole topic of donors).

Wexler was one of three Democrats to vote for immediate withdrawal when the Republicans proposed a parody of Rep. John Murtha's withdrawal proposal as a political stunt. Wexler is not afraid to stand alone or lead the way, but that doesn't mean he always does so when liberals might wish he would. Wexler likes to talk about withdrawal proposals as a way to "put pressure on the Iraqis," as if 80% of them don't want full withdrawal and haven't wanted it for years. Wexler writes of how much he loves "The Star Spangled Banner," a war song.

The real liberals in the House, on the other hand, don't know how to breathe fire. The current war funding bill has been arranged to include separate votes on the war money and on other matters. The Blue Dog (rightwing) Democrats joined with the Republicans last week to block a vote on the Rule to bring the whole thing up, because they opposed spending money on things like helping veterans and wanted to proceed only with creating more veterans. The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), of which Wexler is a member, has many more members than the Blue Dogs and could easily block the Rule in opposition to the war money if Speaker Pelosi finds a way to buy off the Blue Dogs. But CPC Co-Chairs Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, and Out of Iraq Caucus Chair Maxine Waters won't do it, and won't persuade enough progressives to fall in line if they do. They're not breathing enough fire.

Social Security is a topic where Wexler has breathed liberal fire. Of course, he bought into the pretense that Social Security is broken and in danger of collapsing, because outside of that frame one couldn't be part of the debate. But once he'd done that, he made the best move possible by releasing a detailed study of how Social Security could be fixed by eliminating the cap on payroll taxes that currently makes income above $90,000 tax free. And Wexler helped win the debate, holding off the destruction of Social Security, while the cap on taxes still remains.

Wexler's fire breathing also breathed new life into the impeachment movement last year, which has only stalled (though it's far from over) because too many Democrats on the Judiciary Committee refuse to listen to their constituents the way Wexler does. Publicly lobbying your colleagues and the chairman of your committee to do something that has been publicly opposed by your party's leaders, the other party's leaders, and the corporate media is almost unheard of. But Wexler did it when he asked his colleagues and ordinary citizens to join him in pushing for the start of impeachment hearings. Wexler made new and brilliant arguments for impeachment and presented a case that won over some congress members and a lot of other people. Thus far, 235,000 people have signed his petition at
http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com

Wexler has received a Backbone Award for his efforts:
http://www.backbonecampaign.org/storydetai...

Wexler is also rare in his willingness to talk about the stolen 2000 election as stolen and to openly admit the high probability that other elections have been stolen since the advent of DRE (electronic) voting machines and the misnamed Help America Vote Act. Yet, Wexler seems to believe that machines with "paper trails" or paper ballots scanned by optical machines solves the matter. In fact, collecting paper ballots or receipts is only valuable if they are counted, and optical scan machines have resulted in as many highly questionable elections as have DRE machines. I expect that when Wexler realizes this, or realizes that his constituents realize it, he'll advance the fight.

Wexler's book defends his positions and his past work, but it is not pretentious, and he includes plenty of accounts of failed efforts and questionable decisions as part of the civic education process. He also admits to compromising his positions under pressure. President Clinton persuaded Wexler to back a corporate trade measure ("fast track" negotiating) that he knew his constituents opposed and that he says he opposed. In return, Clinton gave Wexler opportunities to participate in foreign policy, especially in the Middle East.

Wexler's district is heavily Jewish, and he is Jewish. Throughout his book he never makes a distinction between the needs of the Israeli people, the plans of the Israeli government, and the desires of his Jewish constituents. All would appear to be one, had Wexler not already told us that his constituents opposed the war. Never does Wexler suggest that the Israeli government may be doing what is not in the best interests of the Israeli people, although the bulk of his book is a denunciation of a Republican-run U.S. government radically resisting the will of the American people. Perhaps Wexler's listening to his constituents could sometimes benefit from a finer grained analysis.

Wexler recounts his foreign travels on U.S. diplomatic business, including a meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad. He writes that Assad asked him whether Bush was crazy enough to attack Syria. Wexler said yes, and writes that he was grateful, in this instance, that such a thing was true. Fire breathing, yes. Liberal, no. Likely in the long run to improve the chances of peace? Of course not.

But Wexler also writes at some length about his involvement in efforts to aid Indonesians following the recent tsunami, and how aid and friendship build peace:

"I remember seeing a sign, a white bed sheet on which someone had written by hand in paint and magic marker, 'America is here. Where is Bin Laden?'"

Wexler understood this to be an expression of gratitude for American assistance. Wexler also worked with and nominated the President of Indonesia for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Wexler's book contains positions I don't like, but many more that I do, and it is a remarkably open and honest book for a politician to have put into the light of day.

If you want to know how Washington works, read this book.

If you want some hope that it can work better, watch what Robert Wexler does next.

If you want a representative who listens to you, retire to Palm Beach, Florida.

Tammy Baldwin?

Barbara Boxer?

Kathleen Sebelius?

Other ideas?

Please vote.

Tammy Baldwin?

Barbara Boxer?

Kathleen Sebelius?

Other ideas?

Please vote.

I'm not going to join in promoting the idea that drunk driving and adultery are political positions worthy of voters' endless scrutiny and titillation, but as long as a congress member as disastrous in his policy positions as Vito Fossella is on the ropes for some dumb reasons, it's worth noting that we have the opportunity to replace him with someone who actually shares our beliefs and might even act on them.

Steve Harrison is a Democrat challenging Republican Fossella in New York's 13th district. Harrison supports single-payer healthcare, opposes further funding for the occupation of Iraq and would bring the troops safely home, would end NAFTA/WTO, supports marriage equality, would abolish the death penalty, and would impeach Cheney and Bush. He has the national endorsement of Progressive Democrats of America.

In fact, Harrison is so good that the Democratic Party leaders in Washington are fishing around for someone less progressive they can run against him. Let's nip that idea in the bud by demonstrating that we can put our money where our hearts are. Go here and give what you can:
http://www.steveharrisonforcongress.com

The Republican Party as a national mainstream organization began with Abraham Lincoln and ended with Lincoln Chafee. Before and after those Lincolns, the party was not something that most Americans could relate to, was not something that many people could imagine offered any sort of benefit to all people as opposed to particular types of people.

Former U.S. Senator from Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee served in Washington, D.C., from 1999 to 2006. He was the only Republican Senator who voted against authorizing Bush to attack Iraq. A lot of Democrats did not do as well that day, or on several other days, as Chafee did. But his party moved away from him, and from the nation, and from the state of Rhode Island, and voters showed Chafee the door in the 2006 elections that saw membership in the party of Cheney and Bush become the greatest liability for incumbents and challengers alike.

Chafee's new autobiographical book, "Against the Tide," makes for an interesting read. The subtitle is "How a Compliant Congress Empowered a Reckless President." Most congress members' books these days (even the forthcoming autobiography by courageous liberal Robert Wexler) struggle to explain that they actually believed the pre-war lies put out by the White House. Chafee doesn't have to put his readers through such contortions, but he does have his own credulity-straining tale of naivete and trust. Chafee claims to have believed Bush and Cheney's campaign rhetoric in 2000 about compassion and bringing the nation together. (Does nobody read Molly Ivins or Lou Dubose?) Chafee says that his illusions were shattered the day after the Supreme Court halted the Florida vote counting. On that day, Dick Cheney met with Chafee and the handful of "moderate" Republicans in the Senate (Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, James Jeffords).

"In steady, quiet tones, the vice president-elect laid out a shockingly divisive political agenda for the new Bush administration, glossing over nearly every pledge the Republican ticket had made to the American voter. We were going to get out of a host of international agreements, he said....We would slash taxes by $1.6 trillion and wipe out the budget surpluses.... He said that the campaign was over and that our actions in office would not be dictated by what had to be said in the campaign. And he pronounced this deception with no emotion or window dressing of any kind. He was fearless, matter of fact, and smug."

In response to Cheney's statement, "Senator Specter took no leadership role in representing the moderate point of view. He acquiesced, and others followed his example.... When it was my turn to speak," writes Chafee, "I made the case that our five votes would be crucially important in an evenly divided Senate. I chose my words carefully and probably stammered with the effort to contain my fury. We were on the cusp of a new millennium that held enormous promise for American leadership in the world, and what I had just heard was petty, arrogant, and irresponsible. It threatened to lead in exactly the wrong direction. I spoke in the perhaps too optimistic hope that I might yet rally the moderates to seriously apprehend the implications of the new agenda. When I told Mr. Cheney, "Our votes at this table are important," he could hardly be bothered. He gave me the back of his hand with a truism: 'Every vote is important.'"

But Chafee's eyes were not quite fully opened that day. When members of the Congressional Black Caucus asked a senator, ANY senator, to stand with them and challenge election fraud and vote suppression in the 2000 Florida vote, Chafee writes that he refused because he did not yet share those House members' opposition to the Bush-Cheney agenda. He writes as if the concern of those Democrats was simply the outcome and not the process. He does not even mention vote counting, and he adds that HAD he known what Bush and Cheney would do, he would have joined in challenging the Florida election results -- apparently quite regardless of whether he believed those results to be fair and accurate or not. In fact, Chafee's comments on election results throughout the book refer to victories and defeats over the past 8 years as if there is no question who actually won any given election. What, one wonders, will it take to stimulate an awakening in this area; does Chafee need to have a frank lunchtime meeting with Karl Rove or Ken Blackwell?

The rest of Chafee's book is a years-long tale of the last sane Republican in federal office refusing to go insane. We hear his exasperation as Republicans stage theatrical votes on bills doomed to fail, a technique that Democrats have practiced for the past year and a half, with the difference that the Republican bills actually deserved to fail. We read of Chafee's understanding, which exceeds that of most congress members of any party, of how the White House set out to strip the Congress of law-making power.

From Chafee's first meeting with Bush he found him disturbingly unpresidential:

"Several times, the president went out of his way to remind me that he was the commander in chief. You don't have to keep telling me that, I thought. I know who you are. Like others, I have been around people who are good at wielding power. They never have to tell you they are in charge. They just are, and you know it. What I saw and heard that day really unsettled me. I'm the commander in chief.... I'm the president.... I'm the commander in chief.... It was unpresidential."

Following September 11, 2001, Chafee showed courage in challenging the White House agenda and rhetoric, to the point of being willing to publicly consider the question of what had motivated the terrorists. Chafee describes the briefings he was given on WMDs in Iraq as completely devoid of convincing evidence. He publicly said that no WMDs would be found. His colleagues took a different course, and Chafee writes that in the months following 9-11, Congress gave up the last of its power and became entirely irrelevant. Chafee writes that he considered running for president in the 2004 Republican primaries but backed off because of the triumph and timing of the capture of Saddam Hussein.

Chafee gives us incisive and blistering accounts of Republican pandering to oil barons, of the corruption of the 9-11 Commission, of the demonization of Hugo Chavez, of the embargo on Cuba which Castro tells Chafee he himself supports, of the Bush administration's opposition to peace in Palestine. Yet Chafee writes of the toppling of Hussein's statue in Baghdad as if it was something more than a staged event. He writes with real fondness and admiration for Paul Wolfowitz. And he opposes unnecessary wars while shamelessly supporting the spread of the military industrial complex for the benefit of jobs in his state, apparently oblivious to the force that the complex is in driving the need for new wars. Chafee voted to confirm John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations although he writes that he was ashamed of the vote when he cast it. Senator George Voinovich decisively opposed Bolton, whom Bush then appointed during a recess. When the Senate reconvened the White House had won over Voinovich, but Chafee found his nerve and ended Bolton's tenure.

In Chafee's tale, the public turns against the war and the Cheney-Bush agenda, and Republicans suffer for it, but remain defiant and politically unwise in defeat. True enough, but the Democrats, of course, have remained defiant and politically unwise in success. They've been assigned by the American public to reverse course, and have instead maintained full speed ahead. While the public favors withdrawal, peace, impeachment, single-payer health care, fair taxation of corporations and the wealthy, and investment in human needs, the Democrats' actions - if not always their rhetoric - remain closer to the Republicans' than to the public's. Chafee offers no commentary on how the Democrats might be to the left of the public on any issues, and yet he concludes his book with an analysis that takes that point for granted. What's needed, he proposes, is a third party for the neglected "center." As the Democratic presidential candidates' positions range from unwillingness to forswear wars of aggression to threats to "obliterate" entire nations, I shudder to think what the "center" might have to offer.

On Tuesday, May 13th, from 8-9 p.m. ET, I'll have the pleasure of interviewing, with your help, the former Senator from Rhode Island. Go to: http://thepeoplespeakradio.net to learn more. Go to http://www.thepeoplespeakradio.net/listen-... to listen live. You'll find instructions there to enter a paltalk chat room where you can post questions, which I will ask. You can also phone in and ask Senator Chafee your questions on the air. Call in tollfree from anywhere in the United States or Canada at 888-228-4494 or anywhere else in the world at 877-489-6350. Following the show, the audio file will be posted at http://www.thepeoplespeakradio.net/audio/2... and you can find there now the recordings of numerous shows with amazing guests.

Take 1 Minute to End the Killing:

Congress Members have received thousands of phone calls, and some of them are committing to voting no on Iraq funding. The vote won't happen until next week, so keep the calls coming: Call your Congress Member now at 202-224-3121 and tell them to vote No on the war funding.

More Detail:

Pelosi does not have the votes to pass the Rule, a procedural vote that must pass prior to votes on each of the three amendments (1. war money, 2. a nonbinding "timeline goal," re-banning of torture and permanent bases, redundantly banning a Bush-Maliki treaty without consent of Senate or both houses of Congress, and forcing Iraqis to pay for the reconstruction, 3. other spending including military spending and veterans spending).

She doesn't have the votes because of Republican opposition to the whole maneuver (which will involve amending a bill that's already passed in order to avoid a vote on the whole package - except for the Rule vote), and because of "blue dog" (right-wing) Democratic outrage over spending some $11 billion on something useful when they want to stay focused on wasting over $100 billion on killing. Democrats who do plan to vote No on the war funding have not threatened to vote No on the Rule. But they should if they want to block this thing.

If Pelosi buys off the blue dogs somehow, progressives could still step in and block the war money by blocking the Rule. There may be some progressive resistance to the Rule anyway, because Lee and Kucinich both want to be permitted to bring up amendments. (Lee's would resrict funding to a withdrawal. Kucinich's would ban the use of funds for attacking Iran, Syria, etc.)

So, call your Congress Member now at 202-224-3121 and tell them to vote No on the war funding and on any Rule that would bring it up for a vote! And tell them to make their position clear to the Speaker. Tell them that you will REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER. Make clear to them that voting for either of the other two amendments will be no excuse for voting for the war funding amendment. You can remind them (92 of them) of this letter in which they committed to voting No.

Take 1 Minute to End the Killing:

Congress Members have received thousands of phone calls, and some of them are committing to voting no on Iraq funding. The vote won't happen until next week, so keep the calls coming: Call your Congress Member now at 202-224-3121 and tell them to vote No on the war funding.

More Detail:

Pelosi does not have the votes to pass the Rule, a procedural vote that must pass prior to votes on each of the three amendments (1. war money, 2. a nonbinding "timeline goal," re-banning of torture and permanent bases, redundantly banning a Bush-Maliki treaty without consent of Senate or both houses of Congress, and forcing Iraqis to pay for the reconstruction, 3. other spending including military spending and veterans spending).

She doesn't have the votes because of Republican opposition to the whole maneuver (which will involve amending a bill that's already passed in order to avoid a vote on the whole package - except for the Rule vote), and because of "blue dog" (right-wing) Democratic outrage over spending some $11 billion on something useful when they want to stay focused on wasting over $100 billion on killing. Democrats who do plan to vote No on the war funding have not threatened to vote No on the Rule. But they should if they want to block this thing.

If Pelosi buys off the blue dogs somehow, progressives could still step in and block the war money by blocking the Rule. There may be some progressive resistance to the Rule anyway, because Lee and Kucinich both want to be permitted to bring up amendments. (Lee's would resrict funding to a withdrawal. Kucinich's would ban the use of funds for attacking Iran, Syria, etc.)

So, call your Congress Member now at 202-224-3121 and tell them to vote No on the war funding and on any Rule that would bring it up for a vote! And tell them to make their position clear to the Speaker. Tell them that you will REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER. Make clear to them that voting for either of the other two amendments will be no excuse for voting for the war funding amendment. You can remind them (92 of them) of this letter in which they committed to voting No.

It's reached a point that everyone has known for months it had to reach, the point at which even people paid to do so cannot keep it going with a straight face. On Tuesday, Senator Barack Obama picked up approximately 99 new pledged delegates from North Carolina and Indiana, while Senator Hillary Clinton picked up about 85. The final count may move a delegate or two, but these numbers are close enough for the following calculation.

Obama now has 1,592 pledged delegates to Clinton's 1,419. There are 217 delegates remaining to be pledged. Of those 217, Clinton would need to win 196 to beat Obama, or a victory of 90 percent to 10 percent. That's about as likely as Dick Cheney hitting 50 percent approval.

Will Clinton finally at long last drop out on Wednesday? Will she wait another week for West Virginia, or yet another week for Kentucky and Oregon? Will she hang in there until June to make sure Puerto Rico doesn't win it for her, or Montana and South Dakota? And will people dumb enough to still watch television have to endure this crap all summer?

I have nothing against West Virginia or Oregon. I wish every state could be involved in the primaries. I'd hold them all on one day in October if it were up to me. But the corporate media has not been keeping Clinton on life-support these many months out of concern for the voters of remaining states. I'm glad to complain with the best of them when pundits hound decent candidates out of the race after Iowa and prior to 49 states. But once the outcome actually has been decided, why should we tolerate our televisions pretending it hasn't been?

The numbers above are based on leaving out Florida and Michigan, which are being left out, and also do not include 19 delegates pledged to John Edwards.

These numbers do not include Super Delegates. Why not? Because this is a democratic republic, and only pledged delegates are awarded by voters. These are the indisputable numbers of delegates assigned to candidates by actual voters and caucus-goers.

Clinton cannot win. Period. She can only hope for an anti-democratic coup by Super Delegates that would destroy the Democratic Party.

So, why does the corporate media behave as if it's still a contest, and why does the independent media obediently fall into line? Presumably those two questions have two different answers.

When has any other candidate been kept on life-support by media corporations in this way? Hasn't the standard for dropping out always been - for every other candidate - the impossibility of winning, not actually having lost?

What can Clinton hope to gain from staying in other than hurting Obama's chances in order to avoid his running as an incumbent in 4 years?

And why is it so difficult for people to think for themselves and let the media and the Super Delegates and the Democratic Party know that WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH?

Don't believe me? Don't know how to do addition? Don't own a calculator? Here's a video of Chris Matthews admitting the media's role in this farce:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/32937

Here's how you can contact the DNC: 877-336-7200 or
http://www.democrats.org/contact.html

As Congress considers President Bush's request for another $100 billion for Iraq, 68% of Americans want Bush to bring U.S. troops home within 6 months, according to a Democrats.com telephone poll of 628 adults conducted from May 1-4, 2008 by ICR ( http://www.icrsurvey.com ).

The poll marks a 14% increase from 54% in September. Most of that increase (11%) came from those who want Congress to require Bush to use existing funds to bring our troops safely home, bringing that total to 51% - a majority of Americans.

Broken down by party, 85% of Democrats want our troops home within 6 months, as do 78% of Independents. By contrast, only 32% of Republicans want our troops home soon.

Democratic support grew by 15% since September, and Independent support grew by 20%. By contrast, Republican support was unchanged.

The new poll differs slightly from last September's poll because Congressional Democrats have proposed giving President Bush $70 billion more than he requested in order to avoid another unpopular funding vote before the November election.

The new poll asked: "President Bush wants Congress to spend 100 billion dollars more in tax dollars this year to keep U.S. troops in Iraq." The comparison data below is only for the identical questions, with last September's data immediately below in italics.

HERE ARE THE RESULTS:
http://democrats.com/iraq-poll-2

Obama and Clinton each picked up 2 pledged delgates in Guam this weekend. Obama now has 1,493 pledged delegates. Clinton has 1,334 pledged delegates. Of the remaining 404 delegates yet to be pledged, Clinton would need to win 282 of them to beat Obama. That's a victory of 70 percent to 30 percent. There is not a single political reporter in the country who considers that a remote possibility, and yet every media outlet covers this "race" as if either candidate could win.

On Tuesday, voters in North Carolina will dole out another 115 delegates, possibly handing roughly 63 to Obama and 52 to Clinton, and Indiana will provide another 72 delegates, possibly 36 to each candidate. Should that happen, Obama would have 1,592 pledged delegates, and Clinton 1,422, with 217 remaining to be pledged. Of those 217, Clinton would need to win 194 to beat Obama, or a victory of 89 percent to 11 percent. Not even Rupert Murdoch imagines that could happen.

Will Clinton finally drop out on Wednesday? Will she wait another week for West Virginia, or yet another week for Kentucky and Oregon? Will she hang in there until June to make sure Puerto Rico doesn't win it for her, or Montana and South Dakota? And will people dumb enough to still watch television have to endure this crap all summer?

These numbers are based on leaving out Florida and Michigan, which are being left out, and also do not include 19 delegates pledged to John Edwards.

These numbers do not include Super Delegates.

But these are the indisputable numbers of delegates assigned to candidates by actual voters and caucus-goers.

Clinton cannot win. Period. She can only hope for an anti-democratic coup by Super Delegates that would destroy the Democratic Party.

So, why does the corporate media behave as if it's still a contest, and why does the independent media obediently fall into line? Presumably those two questions have two different answers.

When has any other candidate been kept on life-support by media corporations in this way? Hasn't the standard for dropping out always been - for every other candidate - the impossibility of winning, not actually having lost?

What can Clinton hope to gain from staying in other than hurting Obama's chances in order to avoid his running as an incumbent in 4 years?

And why is it so difficult for people to think for themselves and let the media and the Super Delegates and the Democratic Party know that WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH?

Don't believe me? Don't know how to do addition? Don't own a calculator? Here's a video of Chris Matthews admitting the media's role in this farce:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/32937

Here's how you can contact the DNC: 877-336-7200 or
http://www.democrats.org/contact.html