A few years ago, Kwame Kilpatrick represented the hip-hop generation coming of age and taking responsibility in an important way.

Now, Kilpatrick is in danger of stereotyping an important segment of the population-young African Americans interested in politics, and also bringing down Obama and the Democratic Party with him.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/24/k ilpatrick.investigation/index.html

Shows the initial charges of corruption.  Of lying and obstructing justice.  Of marital infidelity and official misconduct.

Recently, more charges have been added:

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news /story.html?id=966a7371-3491-4e2e-b9bf-1 d0c062e46ea

and as politico is reporting, there is increasing  "racial" tension between Detroit and it's suburbs:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/080 8/12433.html

3. Michigan's in play for McCain. In the year of the downturn, the hard-hit upper Midwest should be prime Obama country. Instead it's a potential minefield. Obama is still ahead by two to five points there -- similar to margins of victory enjoyed by Gore and Kerry in the last two presidential contests -- but McCain has quietly crept up over the past month and could vault ahead if he anoints ex-Gov. Mitt Romney as his running mate. Simmering tensions between predominantly black Detroit and its white suburbs could hurt Obama. And McCain's surrogates were handed a gift in the jailing of Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, an Obama supporter. "Watch Michigan -- the Democrats think they've got it but they don't," says Quinnipiac's Peter Brown, a longtime Michigan observer. "Obama should be killing [McCain] there, but there's a lot more racial tension in Michigan than in other states."
---

Currently Obama has about a 3 point lead, and is under 50% in Michigan.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/mi/michigan_mccain_vs_oba ma-553.html

Since I think a fair analysis of this election is:

The country wants a Democrat, but is Obama acceptable?

Barack Obama must bring REAL CHANGE to the Democratic Party and to the country.

This could and should come in the form of making sure people take personal responsibility for their actions in real and concrete ways.

The Detroit Mayor should be told to resign by Obama!

Obama should pressure the Michigan governor to remove him.  She has that power.

Obama needs to show the country that Bush type loyalty and party politics will not be tolerated in an Obama administration.

That can start with him setting the tone as the leader of our party.

We don't need to wait around for trials and long-drawn out processes to know from what is stipulated and admitted to on the record should force Kilpatrick to resign.

Spitzer resigned and he should have.
William Jefferson hasn't resigned and he should.
John Edwards should have never ran
Kwama Kilpatrick should resign also.

For the politics, we don't want to get in the Republican mode of covering up for bad actors.

But I'm arguing for a real standard of morality regardless of the politics.

Democrats should stand for honesty in government, and good family people.

We can define standards that demand that people at least be honest in their public statements, and be accountable for their actions in a way that matters: their job and money.

Obama is in danger of being grouped with people like Kilpatrick in Michigan and it might cost him the state.

If Obama makes it clear, America comes first, good government comes first, then he won't be liable for every supporters' or colleagues misstep.  

But if he is associated with them, and responds to gross bad behavior in a normal political way, then many American people will judge him to be just like the rest of them.

Obama needs to take a vacation from vacationing and

stand against Edwards
stand against Kilpatrick

and

get on offense in the POTUS race and stop playing defense.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!

Let's stipulate:

We all make mistakes.
We're all human.
Everyone deserves a second chance.

That said. The Democratic Party needs to distinguish itself as an institution and fight for the survival of a strong marital institution.

While candidates like John Edwards take nearly every opportunity to promote their "family values", and make their private situations public for their political benefit, there is a disturbing pattern developing in our culture where everyone refuses to set moral standards, and hold people accountable.

A look at all the "elite opinion" basically states:

the infidelity was wrong and unfortunately is a part of our society, but the "real" shame is how Edwards lied to the American People, and how he let down so many young people.

I agree with their second point, but we must not allow the idea of men and women being faithful in their marriage to become an "unattainable" standard.

This will take good men like Obama to take the unpleasant but necessary step of standing up for the America we want to live in, and define it in positive terms.  Obama should set standards as a candidate for President.

Real Change can mean:

1. a faithful honest husband, Americans can trust (change from Bill Clinton)

2. an honest political leader who will make good decisions (change from George Bush)

Mind you, setting a standard doesn't mean anyone who breaks it will receive something equivalent to the death penalty.  

But it does mean that we establish a tradition that we work hard to build on and ultimately pass on to our children better than we found it.  

It also means that we as a people both through our government and through various methods in civil society establish right and wrong, and define moral values.

Some of them are easy like being against murder,rape, stealing, etc.; while others of them like marital infidelity are becoming increasingly difficult to attack because of the sheer propensity of "good people" to do bad things.

Obama should throw John Edwards "under the bus", and for good reason.  

He can reiterate that John is his friend.
That he still wishes to work with him in the future.

But that for John Edwards to lie to the American People while running for President was wrong.

He should say that having sexual relations with another woman is wrong. He should say that this has lead to many problems for John that he will have to deal with.

This was not a lie about some distant past that was "over" and done with. This was "real-time" dishonesty that we as Americans should not accept.

Of course, the potential damage to the party and the country should be factored in, but the real damage is to the idea, that you can have an affair, supposedly tell your wife, lie about it, and not establish bad examples for our young people.

Today, I went to a baseball tournament for 19 year boys/young men.

I thought to myself that Edwards behavior had increased the cynicism about politicians especially since his campaign was built on a moral foundation.  But also that he is helping to institutionalize bad behavior, and now we are lowering the standards in our country.

My solution:

Edwards could have kept this completely quiet had he decided to work in the private sector and not seek to be an official representative of the U.S. as POTUS.

but...

Once he decided to run for President, Edwards should have had the courage to be honest with the American People, tell how he failed, how he is committed to changing in the future.  Furthermore, his wife should have insisted on telling 100% of the truth, all the time.

Obama should say these painful things, and say that he will be trying to establish a Presidency, a Politics, and a cultural change that values Marriage.

The message we need to say without hesistation to our young men and women growing up:

take Marriage seriously, be a honest person, take responsibility for your mistakes and that's more than saying,
"I take full responsibility".

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!

I am determined to continue my mission to move us as a democratic party toward a mainstream agenda that promotes opportunity for all Americans, and demands reponsibility in turn.

One strain of thought that has persisted in the Democratic Primary came from Obama supporters who basically assert that America is racist.  They allow that we may have made some progress but the problems of race are a major factor in the lives of many people daily.  

If you listened to the criticism of HRC and WJC, if you listen to the rants of Rev. Wright and Fleger, if you listen to Michelle Obama, if you listened to Obama and Oprah campaign in South Carolina, there was a tone set that was not only inaccurate but harmful.

I am an African American who used to acknowledge the racist nature of this country.  That is until it stopped and we, the Civil Rights Community, the Democratic Party, we the Liberals won and America has changed.

While there are exceptions, and statistics to highlight the problems, the rule of fairness and equal opportunity is evident before our eyes everyday in so many ways that it doesn't make sense to try to list them.  From appointments to important jobs, available credit,educational opportunities,  to the ability to work and live where you please, the opportunity to start a business, a charity, a church, to make mistakes and get second chances etc.

Yet, time and time again, we hear people on the extreme Left, who still have too much power in our party point to examples that basically say, "If he were white, it wouldn't have happened".  

The "It" can be 1 or thousands of scenarios that assert some racial bias.

I linked to this article about a WHITE MAYOR near my home in Maryland who got treated the way the extreme Left say BLACKS GET TREATED REGULARLY:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/b al-mayor0807,0,4563211.story

The police shot his dogs, handcuffed the mayor and his family, and generally did a bad job.

Were this mayor, black, the issue of RACE would be paramount.

But the fact is, police have a tough job to do, and no matter the color, they make mistakes sometimes.  They get it right way, way, more times.

There are bad police with racist motivations.  Just like there are bad teachers with sexist movtivations.  Or bad firemen with anti-Catholic motivations.

But the system is set up to be fair, and the people in general are working hard to make it a reality.

What I'm saying is, we as a Democratic Party and especially the online community, need to transistion away from the

"Jena 6" type cases and the "Duke Lacrosse" type cases, and even the "Diallo"type "41 shot" cases because America is a good country at heart.

For us to be a Majority Party, we must first believe that, and then help make it more so.

It doesn't mean you ignore facts or patterns, but it does mean you don't try to connect dots that could just as easily be random.

I chose this above case because if the Mayor was black it would be the normal story repeated time and time again. Yet, these scenarios happen to many white and other people everyday.

Here in this case:
a white mayor treated without respect and horribly.  It might show the need for reform in that particular police department.

But had this been a black mayor treated without respect and horribly.  It might show the need for law enforcement to respect african americans in general, and that this country is still dealing with "racial issues".

That needs to change if we want to win.

Obama whether he wins or not has received a fair chance.

If Obama wins America is a great country.
If Obama loses America is a great country.

I'm voting Obama, I hope you do too.
I also hope you start celebrating the greatness of our land.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!

I think many HRC voters are viewing the Obama campaign with an idea that Hillary would be doing better were she the nominee.  Some thought and continue to think, Obama may need to add Hillary as VP to give him the best (maybe only?) chance to win.

I disagree with this.

Were Hillary the nominee, we would have 3 or 4 more "did you hear what Bill Clinton said?", and "Former President back in hot water again" type stories.

The press views Clinton through their own personal issues and can't resist the love/hate relationship that is totally irrelevant to the election, but nonetheless would dominate it.

Hillary also would have had so many staffing and advisor issues that her ability to lead would be questioned.  Whatever you might think of Hillary, and I thought much:

The fact that Hillary chose such a bad campaign leadership is distressing. It's hard to imagine a person planning for so long to be "ready on day one", yet her very first major decisions about staff were almost all wrong.

It's true that no one could have anticipated Obama's rise, but everyone who either runs or even observes Presidential politics knows to EXPECT SOMETHING NO ONE EVER THOUGHT OF--THAT MATTERS MORE THAN ANYTHING.

So the number one thing you must do as a potential candidate is to position yourself to be ready for anything.  It is good practice for being POTUS.

Hillary failed that critical test.  So to think she would have all of sudden turned that around in this General Election is not credible.

Right now:

Obama 45   Mccain 44 ---my guess if HRC had won

HRC   42   McCain 46

Accompanied by the requisite, is "hillary too polarizing" and "many congressional dems so no thanks to Hillary invite".

--

Obama has a chance to make mistakes and re-engineer his campaign while others give him the benefit of the doubt.  HRC would not be given that courtesy.

So as we go forward, I'm still expected Obama to have a blowout win because, right now we are seeing a mirage.  Obama's biggest advantage is his appeal to unlikely voters  in the election season. Right now, we aren't in the election season. There aren't any votes, and therefore no point to rally people up.

As Democrats we just need to do the basics: win the battle of ideas, present a positive vision for America, continue registering people, and then ride a rising tide in November.

Obama is a top prize fighter waiting for the fight to begin, but it doesn't really happen for another 3 months.  His task now is to simply get to the opening bell in good shape.

While HRC was a great candidate, she didn't know enough to prepare properly, so stop looking at how green the grass could have been on the HRC side.

Obama was/is the democrats best hope this year.
I say that because he won.

One lesson that everyone in politics should learn is that no matter what the issue, you can't win on defense.

I advise all people who value the institution of marriage to advance a positive agenda that promotes the goodness of America.

Democrats should have a plan to save and strengthen Marriage.

Since the "buzz word" of our time is: SECURITY.

I support MARRIAGE SECURITY.

The reason this should be a Democratic rather than Republican issue is that our party believes in the use of the power we the people through our government can wield to promote the general welfare.

The Republican Party at least rhetorically is opposed to the power of government, and therefore is in a poor position to actually do good in this area.

For Marriage Security, I propose:

First and foremost define Marriage as a sacred institution between 1 man and 1 woman.

We should increase the benefits of getting and staying married, while increasing the disincentives to divorce, "shacking up", and general out-of-wedlock births.   For the latter, we must take care to do this while not promoting abortion.

Here's how some of it could be done:

1. Have candidates up and down ticket actually speak the words about the ideal.  Almost all of them show their families as a political calculation, and use their spouses and kids as props, so this is just one more step.  Using the bully pulpit to promote goodness.  We need Obama to say in his stump speech:

A.  you should wait to have sex until you're married.
B.  you should work hard to keep your marriage strong--stick with your vows.
C.  Divorce should be a last option not a first, second, or third option unless there is physical abuse or other imminent danger.
D.  If your girlfriend is pregnant, you should try to convince her to marry you.  You should be a man accept the responsibility of a family.  If you don't want to, then don't do what creates this whole topic.

I support  birth control education.
I support abortion rights.

and I also support trying to do things the right and ideal way.

E.  Family and friends should work to help couples stay together like most of them pledged in a church at the wedding.

Worse case scenario, it doesn't work, but we will have tried to do good.

2. Use the tax code to promote marriage so much so that reasonable people would choose to stay married for the money rather than get divorced over petty differences.  We should have an exemption for abuse or other extreme examples where people could keep the financial benefits and still separate for the overall good of the victims.  

*This could include a big marriage bonus on the tax deductions.
*Bigger deductions for children if the parents are married and living together.
*overall lower tax rate for married-working families.

3.  We need to increase the stigma of divorce both in civil society and also in the law.  First and foremost people should think harder and longer before getting married. It should be more serious and permanent, than, "for as long as it shall last".

We should have various marriage preferences in the law such as

*mortgage interest rates/middle/working class housing programs
*choices of public school (I support vouchers but if the govt. is going to control school selection, then make it matter for some good)
*health care benefits (I support universal healthcare--but again if we won't cover everyone then we should try to support our values in the ones we choose to cover)

The point is, getting married should be a really big deal, and getting divorced should be even bigger.  

3.  The government should fund artists who are more mainstream in their thinking.  Right now, everyone is trying to "out liberal" each other on television, and in the movies.  There are very few if any solid nuclear families portrayed. Where people leave the program thinking, "I want to get married and be like them".   We need people to be as creative in building up an ideal life as they are in dissecting and promoting alternative views.  If Democrats can support the NEA and other public broadcasting. We should make an effort to find people to create:

entertaining and positive programming that can influence young people.

I don't have any problem with popular culture being the way they are.  That's their choice.  My problem is with mainstream Americans not getting in the entertainment business and fighting it out in the world of ideas.  

Right now, having the govt. on the sidelines is not working.  We should expand the NEA and other groups so that we set some common sense goals and try to reach them.

It is easy to criticize other people and play political games.  Republicans do that well.  But I think the Democratic party should step up to the plate and actually work hard to keep perfecting our Union.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!

Today's story in the nytimes is mostly about Obama saying he'll consider a bipartisan agreement on energy, but the most important part of the article to me is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/us/pol itics/03OBAMA.html?hp=&adxnnl=1& adxnnlx=1217704810-h6JSHfN8AXwv5vhwWIcpq g

Mr. Obama also addressed and rejected Mr. McCain's charge in recent days that he had injected race into the campaign.

"Let me make this point: Most of the people here were in Union, Mo.," he said, referring to his appearance there last week. "Almost none of you, maybe none of you, thought I was making a racially incendiary remark."

He added: "In no way do I think John McCain's campaign was racist. I think they are cynical."

---

This past week has not been kind to Obama, and this article explains why:

The article seemingly puts Obama on defense in "reluctantly agreeing to some drilling".  This as opposed to a bold - clear agenda that he will fight for.  It is part of the peril of being a sitting Senator who thinks he is ahead in a Presidential race.  When you are behind, you actually have more flexibility because you have less to lose.

But the second part about "none of you thought i was making a  racially incendiary remark" is also bad because for the 3rd or 4th day, the Obama campaign is on defense.

You can't win the POTUS on defense.  You have to get and stay on offense.

This is true whether the topic is energy, race relations, or silly campaign ads.

This season has the potential to be 2004 redux.  The Bush/Republican team put Kerry on defense. He then felt the need to "set the record straight", and never got on offense. He kept saying they weren't going to "do to him what they did to Dukaksis" but then he wound up getting done to him what was done to Dukaksis.  One of Kerry's worst moments was saying, "he won't have his patriotism questioned by people who didn't serve when they had a chance to".  He talked about responding.  His campaigned complained, but they never got a good shot on bush and kept hitting him.  I think Kerry felt the election should be about the "issues" and he lost.

Now we have obama who might be made in the same mold except

Obama has never faced an all-out Republican attack.

People who think the Democratic Primary was rough were/are fooling themselves.

In the Primary, Obama received so, so many free passes because:

- democrats had a desire to "come together" in November

• democrats wanted to respect the 1st serious A.A. candidate
  
• democratic voters are generally way to the left, so many arguments against Obama wouldn't make sense in the primary

But now, Obama is beginning to come out into the open with less camoflouge.  

There won't be friendly forces to appeal to McCain to "tone it down" like there was towards Bill and Hillary Clinton.

--
To say, "none of you" understood his words to be incendiary is a straw man.  The fact was Obama was saying the Mccain team would attack him because among other things he is a black candidate with a muslim sounding name and new to Washington. This includes race, and it was done on purpose.

obama and his campaign have done this type of thing repeatedly in the past:

-Oprah and Obama in S.C. making racial appeals about "the right to vote" and "don't let them stop you from voting", "don't be bamboozled", that were totally absent in New Hampshire and Iowa.

-twisting bill clinton's words are the story that obama was always against the war was the "biggest fairytale" into an assault on the obama candidacy that Clyburn (closet obama supporter) and other on the record supporters claimed harbored racial codes.

Well now obama doesn't have the cover of people in the opponents camp like a charlie rangel or john lewis being sympathetic towards him.

The media will try, but republicans hate the media already so they expect a raw deal.

I suggest the obama team get a solid plan such as the following:

1.
- in his acceptance speech make it clear--overtly say-- he and his wife will love america whether they win/lose and that racism is not at issue in this election.

"I will love america as the greatest country on earth, whether I win in a blowout, win a close election, lose a close election or lose in a blowout.  We are a great country and have proven that we are dedicated to goodness.  No one election will prove/disprove that.  America is on the right path, and I intend to be a part of this great journey"

2.
-have a 527 group (not coordinated of course) take a cheap shot in an ad at McCain either about his mental fitness to serve  or the Keating five scandal.  Something that Obama can condemn.

3.
-use these days between now and the election to set the stage for a groundswell in the last week of the election.  

Simply register new voters, build up the democratic base, and do all the basic and necessary things a candidate should do.

Don't respond in the back-and-forth political games of McCain.
YOU CAN ONLY LOSE.  Right now you are scheduled to win and win big.  Why play a game where you either stay the same or lose?

4.
-find ways to bring the word "change" to life.  The same way your campaign ran a different Primary strategy with the Caucus states and the small donors.

I think Obama can win this election by being 100% honest about what he believes, and doesn't think of himself as a candidate trying to do the "political thing".  Actually make decisions now that he would as President, and not play the email/ad/back-forth political games. That is the old politics.  That is McCain's best chance.

---
All of the above is risky, just as the current strategy, is risky, but it would establish and advance principles and garner respect from the people.

This is obama's race to win/lose right now.

Right now, he's on the verge of giving mccain a shot.

There is still plenty of time.
The election really doesn't start until after both conventions anyway.

Craig Farmer

Think about this as the polls show this race is not what most of us thought it would be, especially with Hillary totally on-board.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109219/Gallup -Daily-Race-Tied-44.aspx

Full disclosure:  

http://craigfarmer.blogspot.com/2008/07/ 2008-election-swing-state-odds.html

I would bet my money on:

Obama  54
McCain 41
others  5

electoral college:
Obama 306  McCain 232

but....
a contrary point:

Obama has never won a big election and maybe he's like the New England Patriots poised to lose for the first time in the biggest possible way.  

As you'll see below, if Obama had won in California, Penn., Tex and Ohio, had an upset in West Virginia or Kentucky, then this would be a moot point.

Think about it:

*state level elections don't count (sorry)
*Senate Race--unbelievable fortune where all viable candidates withdrew or were hit by scandal.
*Presidential Primary:

1. Iowa was a caucus where people got to vote in public.  
In a multi-candiate field:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari es/results/state/#val=IA
62% percent chose someone other than Obama
38% chose Obama

Included in that 38% were "second choicers" many of whom truly believed (rightly I think) that if Hillary won Iowa it would have been over.

So Obama "won" by getting his base vote + electoral dynamics where everyone's goal was to keep the race going, Anybody But Clinton.

2. New Hampshire --- lost by 2 points -- 1st chance to knock out Clinton

3. South Carolina --Obama wins big BUT about half the voters being black- went 4 - 1 for Obama, while Obama, Edwards and Clinton split white vote.
Again, another big advantage for obama. He was talking about everyone coming together, and moving beyond race as white voters did by splitting their votes, yet black voters chose the black guy.  So I discount this one.

3. Super Tuesday  ---lost every contested state especially California, Mass., and NJ except Missouri (won by 1 point -with big city vote) ---2nd chance to knock out Clinton

Racked up lead in delegates by OUT WORKING CLINTON IN CAUCUS STATES  and having a BETTER CAMPAIGN TEAM-- for example got many more votes by competing in NY than Clinton who left Illinois alone

4. Ohio and Texas  -- lost both 3rd chance to knock out Clinton

5. Pennsylvania - lost  4th chance to knock out Clinton

6.  N.C. and Indiana -- won N.C. similar to S.C. by winning Black democrats 92% --overall 56 - 42 obma
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari es/results/epolls/#NCDE

Whereas clinton barely won Indiana.  People forgot to note that Indiana borders Illinois and actual shares Chicago t.v. stations.

Close loss in Indiana was considered a win for Obama, because of delegate math(?) and momemtum(?) and no way supers take this away from him now (?)

7.  Won/Lost every state projected to  afterwards many by big margins with the possible exception of Clinton winning South Dakota.

Obama is our nominee because:
1. Clinton picked Solis and Penn to run her campaign and they did a horrible job; while Obama picked a superior team.  This is 20/20 hindsight, but no one seriously questions that if you switch the campaign staffs, you would switch the winner.

2. Caucus states where public voting, organizing, and limited time to participate benefitted the Obama team

3. Democratic sensibilities would not allow Clinton to attack Obama in a "normal" way without it having "racial" overtones and it being inappropriate.  For instance when Howard Dean was attacked as risky and unqualified and unstable there wasn't anyone defending him except on the merits.

4. The Democratic party finally paid a debt to Black voters who regularly support dems with 90%+ support.  This led to certain states like Md, Va., NC, SC, etc. being out of play, and also created an inevitablility for Obama because no one wanted to be the one who stopped him for obvious reasons.

All of this is to say, Obama has never had a straight up election, rolled up his sleeves, had a a fair fight and won.

Now, I don't expect this GE to be a fair fight.

I expect the media to continue to help our side out.

I expect there to be a massive black vote and liberal vote that will be unshakable.  This allows obama to be as moderate/conservative as he wants and not risk a 3rd party defection.

but...

we shouldn't ignore the possibility that this could end in disaster.  At some point the Rev. Wright's, the Ludacris', the Father Phleger, etc. could add up.

People might begin resenting the implied, "i knew america was still racist" implications if obama loses, and call the bluff.

I don't believe this, but then again, i thought obama would be out to a large lead right now.

Craig Farmer

I support Obama for President, but I don't "hate" George Bush or his policies.

I have disagreed with President Bush on many things including:

stem cell policy
war in Iraq; especially its' execution
war in Afganistan; not fighting hard enough to win
attack on internet gambling
refusal to fight for real education reform including vouchers for everyone
failure to establish stronger standards in trade deals
...and more

but I find it interesting that according to Senate Democrats here is what has been accomplished during the 110th Congress working with President Bush:

http://dpc.senate.gov/dpc-new.cfm?doc_na me=fs-110-2-111

Economic stimulus:
a law to boost the economy by offering timely, targeted, and temporary measures to provide rebate checks to eligible single, married, and elderly Americans, provide tax relief for American businesses, and help families avoid foreclosure by expanding financing opportunities;

Ethics and lobbying reform:
a law to slow the "revolving door" for former Senators and staff, strengthen limits on gifts and travel, expand lobbying disclosure requirements, establish a study commission on ethics and lobbying, prohibit pensions for Members of Congress convicted of certain crimes, and implement reform procedures relating to earmarks and conference reports;

Strengthening FISA:
legislation to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to strengthen national security, provide better civil liberty protections for Americans, and increase oversight and accountability of government actions;

9/11 Commission recommendations:
a law to make America more secure by giving our first responders the tools they need to keep us safe; making it more difficult for potential terrorists to travel into our country; advancing efforts to secure our rail, air, and mass transit systems; and improving intelligence and information sharing between state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies;

Intelligence authorization:
a bill to strengthen and authorize the nation's intelligence and intelligence-related activities and require that all federal agencies abide by the Army Field Manual's prohibition on torture;

Care for wounded soldiers and veterans:
a law to improve military health care facilities, fill in gaps in health insurance coverage, increase severance pay, and provide a seamless transition from the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and transition from military service to civilian life; and legislation to protect military bonuses for wounded soldiers;

Enhancing veterans benefits: a bill to expand and improve benefits for all veterans and extend benefits to Filipino veterans of World War II;

Minimum wage:
a law that increases the federal minimum wage to $7.25/hour;

Foreclosure prevention and housing market recovery:
legislation to strengthen and modernize the FHA to help homeowners facing foreclosure obtain safe and affordable home loans; and legislation to increase foreclosure counseling, expand re-financing opportunities, enhance foreclosure protection services members, aid communities in rehabilitating foreclosed properties, improve mortgage loan disclosures, and extend tax relief to help the housing market recover;

AMT tax relief:
a law that protects 19 million American families from being hit by the alternative minimum tax (AMT), a tax that was never intended to impact them;

Consumer product safety:
a bill to strengthen the Consumer Product Safety Commission, improve children's product safety, stop dangerous imported products, increase penalties for violations, and enhance recall effectiveness;

Energy bill:
a law to increase our energy independence, enhance energy efficiency, increase production of clean domestic biofuels, raise fuel economy standards for the first time in 25 years, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve our energy security, reduce our dependence on oil, and strengthen the economy;

Higher education:
a law providing $20 billion in additional college aid to students - the largest increase since the G.I. bill - including an increase in the maximum Pell Grant; simplifying the financial aid process; decreasing subsidies so that the student loan system works for students, not the banks; and improving our K-12 schools by promoting effective teacher preparation programs;

Head Start:
a law to expand eligibility for the Head Start program;

Extending Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP:
a law that blocks cuts to Medicare and ensures access to health care for rural seniors; funds the Transitional Medicaid Assistance and special diabetes programs; and extends CHIP;

Farm bill:
a law to invest in rural communities, ensure participation in the food stamp program, expand programs to feed low-income children, improve conservation, reform producer income protection programs, and expand the development and use of farm-based renewable energy;

Criminal background checks for gun purchases:
a law that improves the National Instant Criminal Background Check System by ensuring that records are more easily updated by state and federal agencies to reflect a disqualifying mental illness and by establishing a better process by which citizens who have overcome a disqualifying mental illness can have their rights restored;

Improving the Do-Not-Call Registry:
a law to ensure that phone numbers can remain on the list beyond five years and that removed numbers can be re-included; and a law to authorize the Federal Trade Commission to collect do-not-call registry fees from telecommunications companies for the operation and enforcement of the registry;

Much of the above is on the "progressive" side. Yet, many things on the list above would have been filibustered (by Rep's) had there been a democratic President or a stronger Democratic majority. So the end result would have been less success.

I'm arguing for Democrats to start "curbing their excesses" here on the internet and advocate for good ideas that can be debated without name calling, and defended on an intellectual level. This is not a call to be DLC type moderates, but to argue for what you believe and support it with facts and logic, and not "you're evil" type arguments.

I think on balance, President Obama would be better than Senator McCain because of:

Supreme Court nominations
Executive orders
World-wide recognition of the goodness in America
Less chance to start foolish wars

But as I argued a few days ago, too many democrats in Congress with an Obama Presidency is a recipe for disaster as it stands today. It would lead to partisan warfare that Democrats would lose. It happened less than 15 years ago in 1992 and is shaping up that way again.

That's because of the zealots here online and those working behind the scenes in all the left-wing interest groups.

A Democratic Congress has done a good job working with this President. It has helped that Bush was a lame duck and was forced to do business. As democrats we should stop denying reality about the progress of the 110th Congress, and recognize Bush was a necessary partner.

---

I'm not arguing for "centrism" or "moderation".

The recently passed Housing Bill is a good liberal bill to address a poorly functioning market.  It is not right wing, it is not moderate, it is on the left and it is the right thing to do.

I'm arguing for solid legislation and/or ideas that can be advanced without venom and craziness.

----

Candidate Obama seems to understand this, yet many seem to think he is only doing what needs to be done to get elected. I think Obama is being geniune. Someone is wrong.

Yesterday, Dems wasted time in Committee voting to hold Karl Rove in contempt.

They also voted to "apologize for Slavery".

Hopefully this is not a sign to come when we win in November.

Craig Farmer