During the ongoing Compassion Forum, Hillary Clinton talked about "our great drug companies" in the context of a discussion about providing affordable prescription drugs to the poor. She was saying they're great because they invent new drugs which people can then make generics from, though she said that they needed to do more to work with the government to provide affordable drugs. I think it's really accepting a corporate frame to describe drug companies in that way when their sky-high prices continue to cause a lot of Americans to have to choose between drugs and other vital needs (like food).
Wharton professor Gregory P. Nini and I just released a new study that casts serious doubt on the use of the popular vote to provide legitimacy in the current Democratic nominating contest.
A major problem with using the popular vote as a measure of democratic will is that some states have held primaries while others have used caucuses, which have far lower turnout.
According to our analysis, an additional 4.1 million voters likely would have participated in the Democratic nominating process had every caucus state instead held a primary – people who are left out of current popular vote tabulations. Additionally, it is likely that the candidates’ share of the popular vote would be different.
Wharton professor Gregory P. Nini and I just authored this new paper showing that more than two million additional people would have voted in those primaries had they thought the results would be counted.
Among the proposed alternatives for seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan is to use the results of the primaries that already happened, based on the argument that doing so would avoid disenfranchising the 1.7 million Floridians and 600,000 Michiganders who already voted. However, doing so would disenfranchise many people from FL and MI who did not vote in the earlier primaries because they did not expect their delegates would be seated at the convention. Based on a statistical comparison with turnout in other states' primaries, it appears that roughly two million more people would have voted in FL and MI had they expected their delegates would be seated.
John Edwards will need a virtuoso performance at tonight's debate to achieve the dramatic come-from-behind win he needs to stay alive. He's facing an opponent in Barack Obama who proved with his amazing Iowa victory that he is an extraordinary organizer, possibly a strategic genius, and above all an inspiring presence who captured Iowans' hunger for change. And he's got momentum. And let's not forget Hillary Clinton, who can count on lots of money, a ruthless campaign operation, and real affection for her and Bill Clinton in the state.
But Edwards can definitely win - with a slight retooling of his message.
- Give us a little hope The first thing Edwards has to do is combine his anti-corporate message with an inspiring vision of a hopeful future. Anti-corporate attacks, though they strike a chord with many Democratic voters, can only go so far.
I'm on the second day of my book tour in Iowa for my book Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party and I'm seeing something amazing: John Edwards surging from conventional wisdom's forgotten candidate towards what seems to me an almost definite win on Caucus Day. Admittedly, I'm a bit biased: I'm personally a John Edwards supporter and the president of the Democratic Courage political action committee that ran this ad against Hillary Clinton.
But here's what I'm seeing. First - a taste of some big news: a major up-for-grabs statewide leader with a large and loyal following told me he is going to endorse Edwards in the next week. I'll report the person's identity as soon as I get the go-ahead. Second, Edwards supporters are super savvy about the caucuses. I remember attending a caucus in 2004 (as a Kerry campaign volunteer) and watching the Edwards folks, many of them union members, out-organize every other campaign to convince wavering voters to come to their side.
As part of his effort to limit the influence of corporate lobbyists and other big money scoundrels, John Edwards announced this weekend that, as president, he will invite one million people every two years to participate in a deliberative democracy forum to hatch and debate policy ideas as a way to put ordinary people front and center in the governing process. It's like having one million consultants, but instead of the consultants being hacks providing self-serving and often false advice, they're ordinary people finally getting a bit of access to the governing process. I'd caution that this kind of effort is a great incubator of ideas but doesn't substitute for developing the raw political power necessary to get laws passed - though it can help if the million participants act as ambassadors for the ideas they've helped develop.
On Tuesday, Barack Obama announced his support for President Bush's bid to expand the North American Free Trade Agreement to Peru.
Yup - Obama is once again helping pass one of President Bush's top priorities - even as Bush blocks the entire Democratic agenda and daily rains rhetorical abuse down on Democratic heads. Is this how Obama is going to negotiate in the White House?
When 23 Senate Democrats joined all the Republicans in a vote Thursday to condemn MoveOn.org for its New York Times ad questioning whether General David Petraeus would deliver truthful testimony about Iraq, they also condemned one of the planet's biggest defenders - and everyone concerned about the environment should be concerned about this as well, no matter your feelings on Iraq (this is true also of groups that work to promote public television, clean elections, and democracy in general).
MoveOn has been one of the environment's best friends, running a sustained and highly effective campaign to tackle the climate crisis. I've personally witnessed the fruits of their labors.
When I was working as Deputy Field Director for a major national environmental group, we worked closely with MoveOn.org to set up district meetings across the country to fight George Bush's energy policy; MoveOn's involvement enabled us to do far more in less time than we otherwise would have been able.
"You're weak on terror," screamed the Republicans.
"You're spineless," yelled progressives.
"You make decisions on purely political grounds," sniped the mainstream media.
No love. True, Democrats did cave to President Bush in a particularly craven manner when they signed off on his drastic expansion in warrantless spying on American citizens. And they've yet to summon the backbone to meaningfully confront him on the Iraq War.
But, though you wouldn't know it from listening to most progressives or the mainstream media over the last month, Democrats actually made major steps forward on other parts of the progressive agenda in the final months of the summer session.
September 4th Event Marks New Phase in Struggle for Planet I'm incredibly excited about the September 4th Climate Emergency Fast being organized by the U.S. Climate Emergency Council and others. I've signed up, and hope you will too by clicking here. In one week, the number of fasters has grown from 395 to 795 and continues to multiply. Everyone I've talked to about it is instantly drawn to it; people seem to instinctively understand that we need to move beyond polite letter-writing, lobbying, and yes, blogging, that has characterized response to the climate crisis thus far.
In most true crises, people take to the streets if the government doesn't act. What's happening to the planet is a crisis of that scale, but thus far hasn't got the dramatic response it merits. Institutional advocacy alone just won't cut it.
A new study in the journal Science ($ub req'd) validates what many have been saying all along: that biofuels, especially those from the tropics, are far worse for the planet than regular old crude oil.
The study finds that we could reduce global warming pollution two to nine times more by conserving or restoring forests and grasslands rather than razing them and turning them into biofuels plantations - even if we continue to use fossil fuels as our main source of energy. That's because those forests and grasslands act as the lungs of the planet - their dense vegetation sucks up far more carbon dioxide and breathes out far more oxygen than any biofuel crop ever could.
I ran into Al Gore at a climate/energy conference this month, and he vibrates with passion about this issue — recognizing that we should confront mortal threats even when they don’t emanate from Al Qaeda.
"We are now treating the Earth’s atmosphere as an open sewer," he said, and (perhaps because my teenage son was beside me) he encouraged young people to engage in peaceful protests to block major new carbon sources.
"I can’t understand why there aren’t rings of young people blocking bulldozers," Mr. Gore said, "and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants."
As awful as the fate of the four coal miners trapped underground in Utah is, the sad truth is that they represent merely a fraction of the casualties of America's addiction to coal.
Every year in America, pollution from coal fired power plants cuts short the lives of more than 30,000 people and causes millions of asthma attacks, according to government consultants Abt Associates. It's also responsible for retarding the mental development of thousands of American children: according to EPA scientists, more than one in six children born every year have elevated levels of mercury in their blood, putting them at risk for developmental disorders and slower brain growth.
Worst of all, coal is driving the global climate crisis that is putting billions of people at risk from more extreme weather, spreading infectious disease, and disastrous flooding (not to mention threatening thousands of species with extinction).
Bill Richardson courageously acted this week to save the highly endangered wolves of New Mexico by calling for suspension of a brutal Bush administration policy that puts taxpayer dollars toward hunting down endangered species like the wolf.
Richardson was spurred to act when a federal wildlife agent, acting under the auspices of the Bush administration policy, on July 5 shot and killed a female wolf pack leader in New Mexico (one of only about 55 mature wolves still alive in the wild in New Mexico).
The great question on the minds of the people gathered tonight outside the Capitol, and, I suspect, at the more than 150 similar anti-war vigils nationwide was, "Are the Democrats for real?"
Tonight, Reid, Pelosi, and Carl Levin, for at least one glorious instant, became the "Fighting Dems."
"I want everyone here tonight – every American from coast to coast – to know that we won’t stop fighting until we end this war," Reid said. "That is what this night is all about."
Statements like that should give us reason to celebrate how far the peace movement has come. Reid, Pelosi, and others gave full throated support to the goal of ending the Iraq war and did it not to Katie Couric but to a passionate crowd of progressive activists - and brought upwards of 40 Democrats, including most of the top leadership, with them. I will never forget the huge pack of senators and congressmen descending from their air-conditioned Capitol aerie at 9 pm in a 90 degree night to be with a crowd of progressive activists.
They are finally coming to us.
But is it for real? Is this but a sweaty, noisy, passionate tryst? Will the fight and the love last a midsummer's night or endure till the war is finally over?
We have so much to be excited about Live Earth - above all, it brought the message of a climate in crisis to more than 2 billion people worldwide - and that's something that even Ann Curry's excruciatingly stupid interviews with Al Gore and Michael Bloomberg couldn't stop.
Thanks to Al Gore, Alicia Keys, and Madonna, there are many more people today who know that the planet is in danger than yesterday, and know there are simple things they can do about it: change their lightbulbs, "stop driving so many big-ass cars" (Chris Rock), and even tell our political leaders to take action.
The world is a vastly better place for it.
But there was one big thing missing from the concerts: the environmental movement.
Mike Bloomberg's announcement that he's leaving the Republican Party to become an independent should be scary news for Democrats.
He's a moderate, he's not shy about his disgust for the Bush administration, and he has (or will have) a very positive, progressive record on issues like education and the environment. It's hard to see this pro-choice, pro-gun control, anti-war ex-Democrat ex-Republican having too much appeal to the GOP dead-enders who've stuck with Bush and the Republicans this far and are looking for a candidate who will continue Bush's hard-right governance and conservative cultural jihad at all costs.
