Winning in Iraq?

In the Ghetto

Many claims have been made recently relating to our "success" in Iraq. Proponents of these claim, such as John McCain, President Bush, and virtually every annoying conservative talking head, say that the surge has worked, violence is down, and PM Nouri al Maliki is becoming a strong leader and is pushing through political reform in the war-torn country. They also use these reasons as reasons for the United States to continue its occupation of Iraq.

I'm not going to refute these facts. Violence is down, and this downturn indeed came about the same time as we tossed more troops at Iraq. Also, there is less sectarian violence which, to the naked eye, is proof of reconciliation between the hostile factions. This simple article is just meant to point out some of the inaccuracies and deceptions in their argument and try to nudge them back on the right track.

There is no doubt that the surge has brought about a period of relative calm and peace with Iraqi characteristics. But this is a little fallacious. First of all, it's pretty simple to see why the surge "worked." Let's say you have a fire that is getting out of control. So, to combat it, you grab a small water gun that you may have played with at a younger age. As you're squirting water at the fire, you realize it isn't doing anything, and maybe instead of doing it on your own, you should have called the firefighters. But, being the maverick you are, you decide to continue to go it alone and use a fire extinguisher instead of a squirt gun (the extinguisher, by the way, was previously fighting another fire a little east of the new fire). Obviously, this will contain the fire far more effectively than the squirt gun. This is essentially what we did in Iraq. There was rising violence in Iraq and we decided to bolster our troop levels with additional brigades. Only an idiot would think this wouldn't bring violence down. Here's another reason to which nobody seems to being paying attention. Sectarian violence is also going down, so naturally it's due to Mr. McCain's maverick decision to send additional brigades, right? Wrong. Right now, there is essentially a seperator between the warring faction, Sunnis and Shias being put in ghettos (hence the title). As opposed to aiding reconciliation, the surge has actually given Iraq just enough time to be sent back to the post Civil War era US. Instead of growing up as a nation and dealing with its problems, Iraq has said "You go over there, and you go over there. And, if any of you cross this line, NO OIL FOR YOU! COME BACK, ONE YEAR!"

I would like to add one thing, unfortunately, I can't promise any Seinfeld references. America's little dabble in nation building has been, well, just awful. Plus, when we were on the verge of winning it in Afghanistan, our President decided to send troops to Iraq, a country with nothing to do with the War on Terror. Now, Afghanistan is circling the drain and McCain and Bush are busy showing off the new and segregated Iraq. The Iraqi army is now capable of taking over, so what say we hand them a present from us, it's called "Their Country." With all our troops freed up, let's help out Afghanistan instead of occupying Iraq.


Also, my apologies for the title. I couldn't resist.

Prisoner Swap in Israel; and Biofuel Reduction Urged

Israel/Lebanon Swap Prisoners

"In the presence of a UN representative," the government of Israel and the Islamic movement of Hezbollah signed an agreement under which Hezbollah would give up two soldiers it captured during the 2006 conflict, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser who are believed to be dead by the Israeli government, in exchange for five Lebanese prisoners. Among the prisoners being handed over to Hezbollah is Samir Qantar, who was imprisoned in 1979 for his actions during a raid. He is believed to be involved in the murder of three Israelis (including a policeman and a child). Also, Israel is exhuming the bodies of fighters who were slain during the numerous years of conflict between the two battling sides. The leader of Hezbollah added he would "provide information on missing Israeli airman Ron Arad."

So, what does this mean on lasting peace between the two belligerent camps. Hopefully, this may lead to an easing of the tensions, a theoretical détente, on Israel's northern border. There are many complications to a possible peace between Israel and Hezbollah. First of all, it's kind of hard to just give up the fight to which you have dedicated your life. That's a given. A more concrete reason would be Hezbollah's ties to various other radical groups who are always working hard to fight against Israel. United by their hatred of Israel, Hezbollah, a radical Shia organization, has provided military training and financial support to Hamas, the radical Sunni group fighting Israel in the Gaza Strip. Currently, Hamas holds an Israeli prisoner of its own, soldier Gilad Shalit. Hamas controls the Gaza Strip, and, despite the recent ceasefire, Israel and the militant group continue to exchange acts of violence. Finally, Iran, a country which has incessantly opposed Israel and also very Shia, and Hezbollah are, to put it lightly, good friends. If Israel can somehow establish a peace deal, hardlinersin Israel might believe it's lending credence to a peace deal with Iran.

There are many occlusions to a peace deal with Hezbollah. However, for the sake of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the entire Middle East, we can only hope that they can form some kind of peace deal. Unfortunately, this a very, very unlikely scenario.

Biofuels Barred?

The President of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, discouraged rich countries from growing crops, that could be used as food, for fuel. Speaking at the G8 summit in Japan, Mr. Zoellick berated the US and EU for using corn and rapeseed for fuel. The Secretart General of the UN Ban Ki Moon has also blamed biofuel production for the food shortage.

While the EU and Japan also bear responsibility for this crisis, seeing as how I live in the US, I'm going to focus on the hypocrisies of the US policy on trade and hunger. The United States claims to be the greatest nation of the world, the world's policeman, and various other trite, arrogant labels made by, quite frankly, trite arrogant people for, most likely, the only country to which they have ever been. However, isn't it true that, as the world's policeman, shouldn't we not only be fighting the "evil-do-ers" of the world, but be aiding the citizens of the countries where we are fighting these bad people. Instead, we are fighting the interests of the poor people abroad and bickering over the patriotism of various presidential candidates.

The economy is tough right now, and this downturn is mostly caused by the price of oil. As a result, many are looking toward different renewable resources for our energy crisis. Unfortunately, we are making two mistakes. The first has to do with these "renewable resources" to which we're attempting to turn. Instead of investigating reasonable solutions like nuclear plants, wind and solar energy, and batteries with longer lives, we're taking crops, which could be used to feed the world, and turning them into fuel. This is taking food off the tables of millions of people and putting it into our cars. The second mistake is with our trade policy. As a country, we purport to be supportive of not only free trade, but of the plight of millions of poor farmers and workers around the developing world. However, as we continue to support agricultural subsidies, we are doing neither. Subsidies go against everything for which free trade stands. Also, with cheap US imports, poor farmers in the developing world and their slightly more expensive crops are plunging further into poverty. Until the US changes its policy, nothing good will happen to these poor people.

Betancourt Back; The Impotence of the AU; and My Take on Obama's Veepstakes

Betancourt Returns

After more than six years of captivity by the leftist rebel group FARC, former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt has been rescued by Colombian authorities. Along with fourteen others, including three American defense contractors, Betancourt was released and is in reportedly "very poor health." Her release was a cardinal point of French foreign policy.

While it may sound in bad taste, this is a major blow to FARC and its attempts to get their jailed guerillas released. In order to gain leverage in negotiations, FARC has used Betancourt as a bargaining chip. However, now, not only have they lost that leverage, this allows Colombian President Alvaro Uribe to continue his military offensive against the group. Betancourt's captivity had put pressure on Mr. Uribe to negotiate with FARC, something he has resisted in the past.

This setback adds to the many FARC has faced recently. Among other things, FARC has lost its longtime leader, Manuel Marulanda, along with two other members of its seven man ruling body. That said, the group still holds more than forty hostages and continues to ravage the country.

AU Apathy

We all know of the death and destruction spread by the militias supporting Robert Mugabe's Zanu-PF. Mr. Mugabe has been defiant of international calls for him to either hold free and fair elections, form a coalition government with his opponet Morgan Tsvangirai, or just step down. Today, leaders of Africa met for an AU summit, giving them a chance to chastise Mr. Mugabe and dragoon him into doing one of the aforementioned actions. With this opportunity, these prominent African leaders...

BLEW IT! Yes, in the first window to pressure Mugabe, there he was, sitting in the chair for Zimbabwe. Despite the rise of the AU as a legitimate union of a continent rising out of the muddle of its past, it has shown ineffectiveness when dealing with Zimbabwe, feebly bowing to Robert Mugabe. In the resolution that was approved by the AU, it weakly called for a unity government, failed to call the elections illegitimate, and lionized the "efforts" of Thabo Mbeki to break a deal. However, Mr. Mbeki's policy of "quiet diplomacy" has been largely fruitless and he has shown a stubborn relectance to issue even the mildest criticism to his neighbor, Mr. Mugabe.

The future of Zimbabwe is continuing to worsen. The rightful winner of the first round, Mr. Tsvangirai, is now hiding at the Dutch Embassy, his life in danger. He is, rightfully, denying any attempt at a unity government until he is declared the winner of the presidential campaign. As shown by the AU, international leaders are unable or unwilling to intervene or even condemn the actions of Mugabe. So now, Zimbabwe's hopes rest on the actions of the west. However, any action would definitely require UN approval, and China and Russia are going to veto any sanctions. Also, military intervention, even with UN approval, is very unpopular. The outcome of any military action could be devastating for Zimbabwe. Until action is taken, the people of Zimbabwe will continue to languish under hyperinflation and Mugabe's oppressive regime. Even more tragically, anyone who attempts to flee the situation faces vehement xenophobia in their new location, especially in South Africa.

Veepstakes

If past trends hold true in this election, Barack Obama will choose his running mate in the very near future. In 2004, John Kerry chose John Edwards on July 6th. In 1992, Bill Clinton chose his ultimately more successful running mate, Al Gore, on July 9th. So, the question is, who will be Obama's number two. I've narrowed my guesses down to five people: Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Joe Biden, retired General Wesley Clark, former Senaor Sam Nunn, and, my longshot pick, former House Majority and Minority leader Dick Gephart.

Bill Richardson
A perfect candidate on paper. He is a latino, he has loads of foreign policy experience (he has negotiated with numerous world leaders and dictators), he was an Ambassador to the UN, he was Secretary of Energy under Bill Clinton, he is a popular governor of a swing state, and he is a pro-gun, pro-penalty western moderate. However, there are some downsides. His tenure as Secretary of Energy was plagued by the Wen Ho Lee scandal which might take away some of his credibility on energy and national security issues. His support of medical marijuana might hurt the Obama campaign among moderates. Finally, two minorities on the same ticket may cause even more trouble with working class whites.

Joe Biden
Mr. Biden's VP prospects have been somewhat dismissed by the media while he could be a superb number two. He is a Catholic, which is a demographic that Obama has had trouble with in the past. His longtime membership with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would help Obama with his biggest problem, his lack of experience. Biden took a prominent role in the Balkans conflict and influenced then President Bill Clinton's policy toward the region. However, he adamantly supported Bush's policy with regards to Afghanistan and Iraq, although he repeatedly called for more troops in Afghanistan. Fortunately, he has reversed his position on Iraq and now advocates a draw down of US troops. Another problem for the Senator is his geographic location. Despite Delaware's longstanding affinity for conservatism, I doubt he will help expand the electoral map.

Wesley Clark
There is no doubt what General Clark will bring to the ticket. He has actually commanded troops, going over John McCain's head. He was a supporter of Hillary Clinton and might help in party unity, bring over some of Mrs. Clinton's former supporters who are hesitant to support the "in-experienced" Obama. One downside of his candidacy are his remarks regarding the military experience and qualification of John McCain which received criticism from both McCain and Obama.

Sam Nunn
One of my favorites, Sam Nunn has many years of experience. He served in the Senate for 25 years and as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee for eight years. He is a moderate Democrat who has broken from his party on social and economic issues. This could help Obama reach out to disaffected Republicans and Reagan Democrats. Finally, he is from Georgia, a state that has been put in play by Barack Obama. However, his moderate to conservative positions could put him and Obama at odds with the Democratic party base.

Dick Gephart
The former majority leader of the House, Mr. Gephart is very popular with the labor movement. This characteristic could help with Reagan Democrat, union members who have shown reluctance to support his candidacy. However, he isn't a very popular choice for VP, and, as I said before, he isn't a very likely choice.


I would like to respond to a comment on my last post by "lp." I agree with your thoughts, this PUMA phenomenon isn't very significance and will lose much of its prevalence in the coming weeks as they go through the five stages of grief and inevitably reach acceptance. I also agree with your belief that it is a media created event. It is just another example of the media seeing a "shiny object" and making a big deal out of it.

Thanks for your comment, please keep reading.

"Election" in Zimbabwe; The Emergence of the "PUMAs"; and John McCain's Waitng Game

Mugabe and His "Election": End to the Zimbabwean Campaign, Beginning of the International Campaign

Today, according to my intense calculations, Robert Mugabe will win the "election" in Zimbabwe. This is a hollow victory, as very few individuals are planning to recognize the results of the so-called election. Mugabe has led a campaign of violence that has forced opposition candidate Morgan Tsvangirai to not only withdraw from the race but seek safety from the Zanu-PF militias that are beating, torturing, and killing innocent MDC supporters throughout Zimbabwe.

The run-off held today was described best by Mr. Tsvangirai as Mugabe "desperate for the illusion of legitimacy." Zanu-PF militias rounded up Zimbabweans who would otherwise have boycotted the election, and forced them to vote. And, in the voting booths, only those prepared to face violence voted for Mr. Tsvangirai, because they knew anyone who voted for him would be tracked don and harmed. Plus, in what could be a conspiracy meant to drive me crazy, the American media barely even mentions it. MSNBC.com, a website that I use regularly, has only a small link on its front page, buried underneath pictures of the Obama/Clinton unity rally. On CNN.com, even in the international version, a small link reads: "Mugabe rival: Opposition rival intimidated." They would've put this link on their US front page, but too much space was taken up by these three particularly important stories- "3 teachers accused of sex with students," "Colorado stamp has Wyoming mountain," and "Review: Wall-E is a classic." Now, while I know the Zimbabwean humanitarian crisis doesn't have sex, mountains, or funny robots (the big three), I think CNN could've made some space.

Now, the question is what happens next? Will the UN impose sanctions against Zimbabwe's already broken economy? Will the AU attempt to pressure Mugabe to change his ways? Who knows, all we can do is wait.


PUMAs, Not Just Shoes

There has long been concern that the Democratic Party will not unite after the long, hard fought primary fray. Today, in an attempt to put their differences behind them, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton appeared in an event in Unity, NH. The event was so steeped in symbolism, it was less of a campaign stop and more of a John Steinbeck novel. However, some are not impressed.

An organization, PUMA (Party Unity My Ass), has emerged as a group of Hillary Clinton supporters stubbornly refusing to vote for the man she lost to, Barack Obama. Most likely, these supporters will vote for the Republican presumptive nominee John McCain, however, some will vote for Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, or other third party candidates. Not only are these people just ignorant, but they are making a charade of our democracy. The only thing worse than someone not voting is someone voting out of protest or poor information. I can only imagine what the oppressed people in Zimbabwe who yearn for a functioning democracy would have to say to these people.

Another shocking thing about this group and people like them is the ignorance. A majority of the PUMAs are women, who are vexed over the purported "sexism" that led to the debasement of Hillary Clinton and her campaign. And yet, they are voting for John McCain, a man with a 1% rating from NARAL, indicating a strong anti-abortion stance. If, and this is a big if, John McCain gets elected and Roe v. Wade gets overturned, what will happen to all the unplanned babies that will be born to unprepared and unready parents just because the mom didn't trust Obama and his "lack" of experience. This election is about more than petty grudges, it's about the future. And, on the very, very, very off chance that a PUMA is reading this, shame on you.


Mac's Minatory Muddle

Republican presumptive nominee is digging himself into a rut. He is trying to attract both sides to his campaign, using nebulous language to describe his plans. Because of his problems with the conservative base, he is desperately trying to fashion a base out of mismatched sects of the political compass. However, as more comes out about his true beliefs, it will be fun (at least for this political junky), to watch these haphazardly formed alliances melt away like cardboard boxes in a thunderstorm.

All folksy similes aside, let's look at these various factions of the McCain coalition. McCain is trying to pick off indignant Hillary Clinton supporters (see above). He has been pursuing two groups: women and middle class whites. All Mr. McCain has said about Mrs. Clinton lately is how great she is, how hard she fought for women's rights, and how misogynistic the media is. However, I can only envisage how surprised these fairly liberal, mostly pro-choice women will react to, as I mentioned above, Mr. McCain's 1% rating from NARAL.

As for the working class, white, union members who so actively supported her campaign are now a little confused about Mr. Obama's patriotism and national defense credentials. Now, McCain is playing up his war record and his "chase bin Laden to the gates of hell," attitude and using the standard issue b.s. conservative attack against the liberal elite who want to spread gay marriage throughout the Middle East, after ceding half of America to al-Qaeda, of course. However, other than the fact that the complete second half of the last sentence is a completely false representation of the Democratic Party, McCain is attempting to run as one who cares about working class while supporting every free trade agreement ever, with or without environmental or labour regulations. This is quite the troubling fact for the union members fighting for their jobs. And, if he panders to them and adds environmental and labour regulations, he will lose the economically liberal wing of his party.

On a similar note, he is trying to walk the tight rope between the conservative free market solution and the liberal regulation solution. He is trying to please everyone all the time based on who he talking to at the particular time. However, he's not asking anyone or anything to sacrifice, and that's what it's going to take to reduce emissions. While profit motivates many people to innovate, there's only so far it can go. And, he advocates pouring oil on our oil addiction, which would help gas prices in only 5 years or so and destroy our environment starting the day we start to drill. It's just not happening.

It's also interesting to see him discuss the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. McCain believes that the reason why we should stay in Iraq is because the Iraq government is capable of carrying out missions on its own and is starting to function as a government. Fine, Mr. McCain, then, let's start to pull out and give them the responsibility of taking care of their own country. Also, he says he's strong on national defense and on terror, however, the terrorists are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taleban is resurgent and, with our resources being poured into Iraq, we do not have the money, man power, or equipment to arm the Afghan military or take them on ourselves. Obama understands this, Mr. McCain does not.

Finally, the final point. This one is particularly hilarious to me: the myth of McCain being a "deficit hawk." While it is true McCain defies the common practice of earmarking and has led the crusade against pork barrel spending, this money which he is trying to keep the government from spending pales when compared to the money we've borrowed from China to pay for the war in Iraq. Plus, as opposed to taxing the people with the means to pay for it, Mr. McCain is cutting their taxes, driving our deficit to all time highs. Now, with the deficit and China rapidly growing and the only think shrinking is the value of our dollar, who's paying the price for "economic prosperity": the American middle class. While I am firmly against protectionism and the economic policies brought up by Alexander Hamilton in the early days of our country (the American School), they do bring up a point: deficits are fine only if you have the means to pay them off. If we want to go into the red, that's fine, but we better be able to pay it off through not only cutting government spending, but raising a few taxes too.

Anyway, all I'm saying is, as soon as all these facts come out, we're going to see the McCain campaign crash and burn and it may be anywhere from a 20 delegate win for Obama and a complete blowout, up to a 100+ delegate wash, very 1964-esque.

Nelson Mandela Speaks Out; and Ralph Nader Seeks Attention

Mandela Mauls Mugabe


Today, for the first time, former President of South Africa Nelson Mandela spoke out against the controversial actions of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe. In his description of the crises, he talked about "the tragic failure of leadership" of Robert Mugabe. This adds to the calls of South African leaders to postpone the June 27th run-off due to the violence plaguing the campaign. Like many other leaders, Mandela has been tentative about speaking out against the violent campaign of Zanu-PF loyal militias against fellow Zimbabweans.

Once regarded as a hero of the struggle for independence in Africa, Robert Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe much like a dictator. As his country has spun into turmoil, Mugabe has clung on to control, blaming colonialists like Britain for all of the problems even the hyperinflation that has destroyed the once booming economy of Zimbabwe. However, the international community seemingly has had enough. Virtually every nation is calling the election a sham, and nothing epitomizes this change of heart more than Britain's stripping of an honorary knighthood given to Mugabe.

Call me a cynic, but all I can think of when reading of various international condemnation of Mr. Mugabe is... what took so long?!?!? Where was Mr. Mandela when various leaders, including Morgan Tsvangirai and Tendai Biti, was arrested numerous times before the election? Why wasn't Mr. Mbeki more involved during the more than a month's time that passed before the "official" results were released? While the old saying goes "better late than never," I fear that the situation has spiraled too far out of control for the international community to control.

The Last Act of a Desperate Man

During his lifetime, Ralph Nader has led a distinguished career. He has been a fierce advocate for consumers' rights, a man standing up for ordinary citizens, and, less pleasantly, a spoiler. While I disagree with him on many counts, he has always been a respectable man. However, in recent years, he has become desperate for attention, doing anything for media spotlight. And today, Mr. Nader went after Barack Obama, accusing him of "talking white," meaning he has ignored issues pertaining to the African American community like predatory lending and the overall inequality in the U.S. economy.

What Mr. Nader fails to realize is that Obama has in fact talked about these issues. He has talked about the need to alert consumers of the risk involved in taking loans. If you don't believe me, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#credit-cards, look it up at this location, or just remember his speeches dealing with these exact issues.

If Barack Obama has talked about the issues, then why would Ralph Nader need to distort his record? The answer is a hard pill for Mr. Nader to swallow. His campaign has failed to gain traction and he longs for the spotlight of his suprise campaign in 2000. His status in American politics is waning, as anti-establishmentarians are abandoning him for libertarians (in my mind, crazies) like Ron Paul and Bob Barr. And, with his rapidly decreasing stature, Mr. Nader, a once respected fighter, has stooped to the very level of politics he once fought against, and that is just deplorable.

Coup d'etat

Hello everyone! I'm the younger brother of the former author of this blog. He was ousted in a bloodless coup over the weekend, and I ascended to power. Disgraced, Balke said "I can't wait to see your blog! What an improvement it shall be. Go get em'." The New Mexico Progressive will stay on the same track, witht the only difference being that I am not a young political activist blogging for change. I'm just a teenager blogging for the love of all things politics. Now, onto the top story of today.


Bubba Finally Comes Around

Today, former President Bill Clinton embraced (indirectly) the candidacy of Barack Obama. He couldn't have done it in a more timely fashion either. He only waited 17 days after his wife dropped to endorse the presumptive Democratic nominee. His spokesman, Matt McKenna, issued a one sentence statement that read "President Clinton is obviously committed to doing whatever he can and is asked to do to ensure Senator Obama is the next president of the United States."

Clinton's role in the campaign is the subject of the current debate in the Democratic Party. The former president is still extremely popular from his two terms in the White House, particularly amongst working class whites which would help Barack Obama who has struggled with that demographic. This advantage would help in the swing states of Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Furthermore, his keen political instincts would also be very valuable to Senator Obama as he goes up against a desperate Republican Party.

However, there are many downsides to an increased role for Clinton in the campaign. During his wife's primary campaign, he proved to be reckless and uncontrollable. Several of his statements sparked controversy and he alienated African Americans, a major voting bloc in the Democratic Party. In addition, his shady overseas business deals and his refusal to give up the donors to his foundation and presidential library are another roadblock to a role in the campaign. Finally, the very fact that he represents the past directly conflicts with Barack Obama's promise of change.

That's it. Enjoy! There's more to come, maybe.

Signing off--at least for a while

So long...for now:
As part of my fellowship with the Barack Obama Campaign, I'm not permitted to offer open political commentary in the form of a blog. This, I think, is a perfectly legitimate expectation on the campaign's behalf, as it would be nearly impossible to track the comments of thousands of staff across the country and, as a result, ensure that each is maintaining comments in line with the campaign's message.

Still, it does mean that, at least over the next five weeks, the New Mexico Progressive will take a breather. We appreciate your readership and can't wait to report back to you in late July and early August on all things political as Election Day approaches!

Cheerio,

--The New Mexico Progressive

Off and running with the Obama Organizing Fellows

NM Fellows Pick Up Steam:
I am off and running on my fellowship with the Barack Obama campaign. The campaign has begun an initiative called the 'Obama Organizing Fellows' program, which is comprised of 3,600 activists from across the country, who will spend the next six weeks of their lives organizing for, and supporting the activities of, the Barack Obama campaign for president.

Here in New Mexico, there are just over 41 fellows, with a roughly even split of those native to the Land of Enchantment and those from as far away as Washington, D.C. and New England. After three days of initial training in Albuquerque (today, Monday, represents day three), we will deploy with out small groups (roughly ten folks) to specific regions of the state. My team will be based in Las Cruces and other areas around Southern New Mexico, including, but not limited to, Hobbs, Roswell, and Carlsbad. I'm particularly excited about the opportunity to organize for the Obama campaign in Las Cruces, given that I grew up there and feel I have a good understanding of the area's political dynamic, which will enable me to better support the Senator's efforts therein.

Our responsibilities as Obama Organizing Fellows are multi-faceted. Our top priority is to recruit, train, and retain volunteers. There is absolutely nothing more essential to the victory of the campaign in November then recruiting and training volunteers today, and that will be a key priority for Fellows in the days and weeks to come.

More immediately, our efforts center around voter registration. Each week, we'll work with our small groups to hit our 'numbers', that is quantifiable goals for the number of new voters we register, or folks who've recently moved to, or from another place within, New Mexico and now need to re-register (we will also work to reach 'number' goals in terms of the number of volunteers we recruit, as well as the number of volunteer 'shifts' we fill).

Also, one of our first projects as Fellows is organizing and then implementing to 'Obama Unite For Change House Parties', which are set for Saturday, 28 June. The goal of UFC House Parties is to bring together Obama supporters, former Clinton supporters now supporting Obama, independents, and even Republicans who are tired of their party's performance in the White House and like what they hear from Barack. At the meeting, we'll engage in a group discussion about the issues we feel most important in moving our country in the right direction, as well as specific things we can do to help elected Senator Obama in order to forge that better future we would all like to see.

Moreover, the parties will serve as an event for folks to commit to volunteering for the Obama Campaign and, more specifically, engaging in a voter registration drive in their community on the 4th of July. A critical responsibility of mine in organzing the UFC House Parties is recruiting a host that can bring in a dynamic, politically-engaged group of attendees whom would be likely to get out there and work for Senator Obama. Ideally, each meeting will have 20 participants, not including me or the host, but I would certainly like move that number up by at least 25 or, perhaps, 50, percent. I've already initiated the process of identifying and reaching out to hosts I think would be particularly dynamic. My top prospects are local elected officials, who, formerly, strongly backed the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

As a supporter of Barack Obama, one of the most important efforts I think we need to engage in at this point as we court victory for the fall is reaching out to former Clinton supporters and beginning a discussion on all the things that unite us as progressive citizens. During the primary campaign, the media focused the bulk of its attention on the difference between Senators Obama and Clinton, but I, and most, know that there exists far more that connects these two leaders than divides then, and, in the form of the UFC House Parties, I believe an exciting opportunity presents itself to start the discussion of reconciliation between Obama and Clinton supporters across the country.

All told, I'm loving my fellowship experience thus far. Not only have I might an outstanding group of dynamic activists from all walks of life and a wide range of locales, but I also feel that my work as an organizer will be particularly important in an election that could turn on one or two states. With New Mexico representing one of the most critical swing states around, any efforts that increase the turnout for Senator Obama on Election Day stand to play a significant role in determining to whom the Land Of Enchantment's five electoral votes go. I, for one, plan to work with all my passion, intelligence, and exuberant flare for progress to see to it that our home is, for once, neither red, nor green on 04 November- on that day, I hope, we'll be solid blue.

Irish Vote Down EU Lisbon Treaty

Irish Voters Say 'No' to EU Integration Pact:
Voters in Ireland, yesterday, considered the recently concluded Lisbon Treaty, a pact that would strengthen the institutions of the European Union and unite the continent's countries' political, commercial, and security endeavors in an unprecedented manner.

Much to the dismay of my brother, Padraig, whose real name, Patrick, has shifted to its Irish counterpart in light of the country's recent surge in attention, citizens of the Emerald Isle voted down the pact, becoming the first of 15 European countries to give the deal a thumbs-down. Ireland, moreover, was the only country in the EU to consider the Lisbon Treaty by way of a country-wide referendum, which, of course, ran the risk of leaving the decision of whether or not to pass the deal up to voters who may not have been informed as to precisely the impact it would have on their lives.

Indeed, media reports (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7453560.stm) have suggested that thousands of voters who ultimately cast their vote 'no', did so largely because of lingering questions regarding what the pact would actually entail. This, of course, was a risk known to policymakers as they took the bold step of selecting the referendum as the method by which Ireland would way in on the EU deal.

Still, while the country is to be commended to leave such a significant decision in the hands of the populace, the result of Thursday's ballot, I believe, is disadvantageous for the island state and evidences that officials must do more to fully educate voters on the finer points of referendum issues.

As my brother shows in a well and passionately written piece below, integration into the European Union has been a boon for the Irish economy, with the country's economy growing at the fastest clip in the continent for the better part of the last 15 years, before slowing last year. Corporate tax reductions, coupled with the unifying facilitation provided by EU membership, drew a wealth of foreign direct investment from countries across the continent into Ireland.

Moreover, lax immigration rules established by the pact, which encourage the movement to Ireland of laborers from sluggish economies in places like Lithuania, Romania, Poland, and other Eastern European coutnries has provided Irish employers with cheap labor, giving them an advantageous way in which to advance their operations. These rules, coupled with the appealingly low corporate tax rate also encourage foreign multinationals to set up shop in the Emerald Isle, bringing with them a swath of well-paying jobs for the country's citizens.

So, why, then, would Irish voters turn down a pact that would seemingly intensify the process that has ushered in a new wave of economic prosperity by a sturdy six point margin. The answer, it seems, lies in the reality that many voters, rightly or wrongly (in fact, often rightly and sometimes wrongly), still vote with their hearts and not their heads. When I visited Ireland last summer, there was a great deal of talk amongst the folks with whom we conversed about the detrimental impact that the flood of Eastern European immigrants was having on Irish culture. There are rumored to be as many as one million Polish migrants alone inside of Ireland, and the total number of those from other countries isn't far behind. While economists seem to agree that enough jobs exist to account for this rush of new labor and that their presence significantly bolsters the domestic economy, it is equally as clear that newcomers do not so quickly drop the cultural practices and customs of their homeland.

My question, however, is how could, and why should, they. Indeed, this seems to be one of the finer points of globalization that its most vehement proponents often miss. As the Jihad v. McWorld dichotomy explores, a zero-sum game, or cultural tug-o-war exists as globalization brings disparate countries ever closer, while different cultures simultaneously cling more tightly than ever to their unique ideals and traditions.

Indeed, as ideas, goods, and even people cross national borders with increasing ease, groups in countries across the world, developed and developing alike, feel threatened that their ability to retain that which makes them independent might be weakening. And don't we see this when we think about parts of the Muslim World, whose violent backlash to the spread of Americana no doubt constitutes a not-so-veiled attempt to strike back against the imposition of Western ideals on their everyday existence. Or how about in Israel, where citizens seem exceedingly willing to open up their country to, and become a more significant part of, an increasingly global economy, while providing Arabs living within their country a more genuine place within the national narrative seems out of the question.

Yet, as the Irish vote on the Lisbon Treaty powerfully demonstrates, the Muslim and Jewish Worlds do not represent the only places in which cultural sensibilities often trump people's desires to open up to a broader world, a reality that extends to the ballot box, as well. In Ireland's Treaty vote, we see people voting down a measure in order to fight something they see as a threat to their culture and their life as an Irish nation in its purest form. Despite the fact that the improved political, economic, and security conditions that the Lisbon Treaty may engender would better enable Irish citizens to celebrate and share their culture, they have given the old '86' to a deal they saw as no good for national heritage.

Padraig, perhaps, if given another shot, those in the Emerald Isle will reconsider (again, see below for my brother's commentary).

Padraig's Piece:
I don't care what Gerry Adams or Declan Ganley says, it's not a good day to be Irish. With this vote, the future of a more powerful and united EU is in jeopardy. The European Commission said today that other nations should continue to ratify the treaty, but Czech President Vaclav Klaus said that ratification could not continue now. Maybe it's just the fact that I do not live in Ireland and in my extensive research I have missed the hidden anti-Irish laws of the EU and the Lisbon Treaty, but I am absolutely baffled that it would be Ireland that would be the bulwark (good word, eh) to the new EU. Ireland. IRELAND!

Ireland is arguably the country that has most benefited from the EU. Remember, it was further integration into the EU and the switch to the Euro that helped unleash the Celtic Tiger, parts one and two. In the 1980s, the economy of the Republic of Ireland was absolutely horrendous. High borrowing, unemployment and tax rates led to the Irish economy becoming the laughing stock of Europe. Soon, however, the economic climate began to improve partly thanks to increased EU investment in the country. Ireland's economy surged and it soon became one of the richest countries in the world and the incomes of its citizens surpassed some of its Western European counterparts And, while Ireland's economy has been susceptible to global economic trends, it remains strong with predictions of 5% growth in 2010.

So, why did the Lisbon Treaty fail to pass. www.lisbonvote.com The only way I can explain the failure is the misrepresentation used by the No campaign. While every major party supported Lisbon, unless you consider Sinn Fein to be a major party, there was a very extensive campaign to paint a message linking the new EU to a New World Order which would take all the power away from the Irish people. Unfortunately, this populist, nationalist, isolationist, etc.-ist has worked and the future of the EU is in limbo.

I leave you with an Irish blessing

May the road rise up to meet you.

May the wind always be at your back.

May the sun shine warm upon your face,

and rains fall soft upon your fields.

And until we meet again,

May God hold you in the palm of His hand.

Tim Russert's Sudden and Tragic Passing

Russert a Modern Journalistic Hero:

The Sudden Fall of a Media Icon

At 58 years of age, Tim Russert has died. His passing was sudden and came just a day after he returned from a family trip to Italy, where he was celebrating the college graduation of his son, Luke. Condolences immediately swept in from all ends of the political spectrum, as President Bush and White House contenders Barack Obama and John McCain issued statements to commemorate the loss of this media titan, considered by many to be the preeminent political journalist of his time.

Meeting Russert in Iowa:

When I reflect on Russert’s passing, my mind immediately comes to the night I met him earlier this year on a frosty night in Des Moines, Iowa, as I staffed an Obama Rally at Hoover High School, less than 24 hours before caucuses opened in that state’s historical contest. I and other campaign workers were busy welcoming and shuffling in the final arrivals to Obama’s final speech before Caucus Day, when a young man, who looked to be in his early 20s, asked me if I would take a picture of him with his dad. I, of course, said that I would and turned around to find a casually dressed and high-spirited Tim Russert smiling and putting his arm around his son, whom I later found out was roughly my age and named Luke.

What struck me most about Russert was that, in this moment, he seemed like less of a prime-time political journalist than a simple fan of politics, basking in the excitement of a candidate and campaign that comes once in a generation, if that. I’ve long senses that Russert, like many of his colleagues, supports Obama. I feel that he was a man who, more than anything, loved his country and longed to see it head in a new, better, and more hopeful direction. He saw Barack Obama, I believe, as representing precisely the type of change agent necessary to get the country moving in the right direction. I left that encounter and my trip to Iowa, more generally, delighted to have had this personal encounter with a person for whom I hold a great deal of respect, not only for his professional expertise, but for his compassion, kindness, and dedication as a family man.

An Ordinary Person with an Extraordinary Mission:

Russert was born in 1950 and throughout his life was, if nothing else, a fan of all things Buffalo, his hometown. Fans will remember his consistent and often unrealistic predictions of Bills Super Bowl glory, as well as the down-to-earth attitude with which he approached his work.

More specifically, however, Russert will be remembered by former interviewees and colleagues as someone who absolutely loved politics and was unparalleled to the rigor with which he approached his work as a journalist. This year was said to have been particularly exciting for the former Democratic activist, as the historic primary battle between Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton drew millions of new voters to the polls and forged an excitement surrounding politics rarely seen in the United States.

Russert got his start in politics soon after completing law school at Cleveland State University, working for the campaigns of former New York Governor and Democratic presidential candidate Mario Cuomo, as well as long-time New York Senator and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, also a Democrat. Following his campaign work, Russert served as Moynihan’s chief of staff in the Senate and gained a reputation as a passionate, forceful Democratic activist.

Meet The Press:

In 1984, Russert went to work for NBC as a political commentator. In 1991, he took the helm at ‘Meet the Press’, the network’s long-running (in fact, it’s the longest running show in the history of television) Sunday morning political talk show. Russert quickly established himself as a tough but fair questioner, working above all else to force candidates to reveal what was truly on their minds.

Russert was also distinguished by his efforts to make politics make sense to the average voter. He is reported to have claimed that he knew he was doing a good job if, while watching ‘Meet The Press’, the ‘folks in Buffalo’ both understand what was transpiring, as well as learning more about political issues. Interestingly, until recently, Russert was a virtual no-show as a moderator of high-level debates, though he did fill this role on occasion during the ’08 primary season.

Tenacious Inquirer:

Some candidates, I’ve learned, feared Russert’s fierce questioning and were loathe to have him put them on the spot in a television, let alone, debate setting. In 2000, for example, during the lead-up to Hillary Clinton’s initial campaign for the U.S. Senate, Russert served as moderator for a debate between Clinton and her Republican challenger, Rick Lazio. The boisterous journalist from Buffalo spent his evening swiping at the candidates, but doing so in an honest, reasonable manner, which forced the candidates to articulate their platforms in a way that would allow voters to make informed decisions about the two at the ballot box. Several of my friends at George Washington University who majored in political communication often recalled watching this debate as the model of how journalists and candidates (both Clinton and Lazio were in good-form) should perform during campaign debates. Putting candidates on the hot seat and forcing them to give meaningful answers to difficult questions, I reckon, should be seen as the true job of any political journalist.

Moving Forward:

Tim Russert is not replaceable. However, his passing does leave an immediate void in NBC’s Sunday morning political repertoire that need be filled. Personally, I would like to see MSNBC Chief Political Correspondent Chuck Todd (with whom my brother is quite enamored) take over the helm at MTP. Still, no matter whom is tapped to fill in for the Buffalo boy, there will simply remain a void that will linger on the airwaves for some time. Today, we mourn the loss of a titan and, most importantly, a good man.

Tim, we’ll miss you. This year, we’re all Bills fans.

As Economy Screams, Country Needs Bold, Focused Leadership

Back in the Saddle:
After an action-packed seven days traveling the country with my students, I've made a much-anticipated return to Gallup and am happy to make my first posting in a week's time. I joined with chaperones and ten remarkably talented 4th/5th grade musicians from my school, Church Rock Academy Elementary in the great Navajo Nation, as we made a 2+ day train trip across the country to perform at the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian.

To put it simply, the young stars rocked the house and dazzled the audience, which one NMAI staffer estimated featured 1500 excited onlookers, with an eclectic mix of Native American drums and flutes, Caribbean steel drums, as well as African djembe drums. As we toured the U.S. Capitol the following day (many thanks to the gracious and hospitable staff of Senator Jeff Bingaman's D.C. Office), I noted the wide eyes and even wider grins plastered onto my students faces and felt assured that our trip represented an experience they shan't soon forget. Making our way back across the Great Plains, I delighted in listening to my students describe how they missed (and, now more than ever, appreciated) their homes in Northwestern New Mexico.

The goal of our trip was two-fold: first, we wanted to build in our students an assurance that if they dream big and work hard, then their potential is only limited by the extent to which they can dream; secondly, we wanted, in taking such a far-reaching journey, to instill in our students a new and more profound appreciation of from where they come and the complex beauty of their Navajo heritage and culture. On both counts, I can say confidently, we succeeded.

Now that the train has docked in Gallup and I'm well into a morning of much-needed relaxation, it's great to have an opportunity to share some thoughts on the latest breaking political news and commentary dominating our country's electoral dynamic as we move toward November. With that said, let's jump right in and cover some of the upcoming events in Presidential Election '08, as well as shed light on the mouth-watering scenario unfolding around Democratic nominee Barack Obama's possible pick for a running mate. Off we go!

Obama Hopes to Build New Connection with Blue-Collar Workers:
This week, newly-anointed Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama takes his show on the road, campaigning in a number of swing states, whose outcomes will be critical to the outcome of Election '08. Having struggled to capture many of these states in his recently concluded primary contest against Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Illinois Senator is keen on strengthening his ties to blue collar and industrial workers that will play a major role in deciding key battleground states like Ohio, West Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Michigan, to name just a few. While eyeing the Democratic-trending U.S. Southwest for important electoral pick-ups, pressuring McCain in the Heartland is seen by the Obama Campaign as one possible route to attaining an Election Day mandate.

Obama’s Opportunity Amongst Blue-Collar Workers:
Obama’s alleged 'problem' in capturing the support of this demographic is skin-deep and has less to do with any shortcomings in his specific policy prescriptions and more to do with a lack of familiarity between him and labor communities that maintain close ties to, and a strong affinity for, the Clintons, under whose administration they enjoyed relative economic prosperity in the 1990s.

Interestingly, it was Hillary’s husband, Bill, whose spirited endorsement promoted and ultimately secured passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which, perhaps more than other legislation of its kind, has led to a flood of manufacturing jobs away from cities like Youngstown, Ohio, Flint, Michigan, and other blue-collar locales across the Midwest and Southern United States.

NAFTA Hurt Obama in Ohio Primary, Presents Opportunity in General:
NAFTA’s effect on the U.S. economy, in general terms, remains up for debate. However, its impact on blue-collar U.S. laborers seems clearer. With government retraining programs failing to provide sacked blue collar workers with an effective means by which to transition into other, well-paying careers, many Americans who lost their jobs in the aftermath of NAFTA have been forced to drain retirement savings in order to pay mortgages, health care costs, their children’s college tuition bills, and other expenses.

Hillary Clinton’s desire to distance herself from her husband’s intimate ties to NAFTA's passing were quite apparent on the campaign trail in Ohio, the state on whose primary the trade pact had perhaps the most profound impact. She rounded up surrogates that held high-ranking policymaking positions within Bill's administration to bolster statements that she always harbored misgivings toward NAFTA, all the while chiding Obama for his alleged double talk on the agreement.

Criticisms of this variety came to a fore when her campaign pounced on statements made by a leading Canadian official, who claimed that high-ranking Obama advisers told him in a closed-door meeting that the candidate’s rhetoric lambasting NAFTA represented little more than political posturing designed to court the backing of voters in Ohio’s industrial pockets, for whom the trade deal had come to represent a political swear word. While it is unclear how much of an impact this back-and-forth had on the election's outcome, Clinton enjoyed one of her finest hours of the primary campaign in Ohio, capturing the Buckeye state by more than 10 points.

The Timing is Right: Obama Should Set the Story Straight on Economic Proposals

With Obama’s primary defeats in Ohio, as well as Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, and other blue-collar heavy swing states, the timing is right for the nominee to hit the road and give voters straight-talk on why he is the candidate best-suited to assuage their pressing economic concerns.

What has been lost in the short-sighted, ill-willed rhetoric that characterized much of the criticism coming at Obama during the primary season was that he is more of an economic realist than any either Clinton or his general election opponent, Arizona Senator John McCain.

For example, as skyrocketing global oil costs for oil sent domestic gas prices through the roof, Clinton and McCain engaged in a dose of political populism designed to score points with cash-strapped voters and give them a one-up on the Illinois Senator. Each called for a so-called ‘gas tax holiday’, which would remove the Federal tax on gasoline. Noting that the tax constitutes only a small portion of the per-gallon costs consumers pay at the pump, Obama denounced the holiday as unable to solve the country’s long-term energy crisis or provide lasting relief to the budgets of low- and middle-income families.

Moreover, Obama rejected the gas-tax holiday as a political stunt, claiming that a broader approach to our country’s energy needs is necessary in order to provide individuals with real, sustainable economic hope. The gas-tax holiday rebuff offers just one example of Obama’s unwillingness to compromise long-term economic prosperity for short-term political gain- exactly the type of foresight and strength of mind required of an effective head of state.

On Economy, Obama Offers Progress, not Platitudes:
In order to spur the type of sustainable, comprehensive economic advance that our country so badly needs, Barack Obama has constructed a comprehensive strategy that takes into account numerous issues and factors in the critical impact on our economy of topics ranging from climate change to international political stability.

This week, he takes this plan to the heartland of our country’s political dynamic, discussing with voters the important roles the government and general public will both have to play, as well as sacrifices they'll have make, in order to place our economy back on a track to prosperity.

For instance, Obama will promote increased government investment in renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, as well as subsidies to encourage families to recycle more regularly.

However, he will also challenge citizens to do their part to curb climate change and reduce the U.S.’ dependence on foreign oil sources by using less gas and purchasing more energy efficient hybrid and electric vehicles. Curbing climate change and reducing the country’s dependence on foreign oil, Obama will argue, represents a crucial task for the United States, as it seeks to forge a more favorable economic path. In this critical endeavor, Obama believes that public-private partnerships can and should assume important leadership roles. His calls on the populace to sacrifice for the betterment of U.S. society writ large calls to mind the broad proclamations made by an ambitious young president from Massachusetts more than 45 years ago, the same iconic leader to whom Obama has received so much comparison. Any real progress by the U.S. in its quest to establish a sustainable solution to its energy challenges will require citizen and government officials alike to make sacrifices geared toward benefiting the country's long-term interests. Senator Obama seems to understand this and has the charisma to unite a reluctant population around a broad call to action.

Tax Relief for the Middle Class:
Obama has also proposed slashing the Bush tax cuts for the most wealthy U.S. earners and ushering in an era of relief for low- and middle-income workers. Specifically, the Obama plan would call for an immediate $250 tax rebate for more than 150 million working Americans, and, if economic conditions continue to worsen, an additional $250 cut would be issued. Putting money back into the pockets of working class citizens taxpayers would help them through trying economic times and ensure that family budgets are not stretched to the point of explosion.

Moreover, Obama pledges to provide seniors, whom, research suggests, are those citizens most likely to reinject added income immediately back into the economy through increased spending, with a one-time $250 supplement to their monthly social security check. Doing so would go a long way in ensuring that seniors living on fixed incomes have the cash-boost necessary to help them through difficult times, as well as aiding the domestic economy by encouraging increased spending in U.S. businesses.

Fair Trade:
On trade, President Obama would put competitiveness back into the U.S.'s trade doctrine. Under the Bush Administration's damaging proposals, foreign markets have been opened to the benefit of U.S.-based multi-national executives, while opening domestic markets to the detriment of hard-working Americans. While expanded free-trade lowers the costs of consumer goods for working class folks, domestic workers should not be forced to compete with laborers abroad whose government's give little credence to the importance of internationally-recognized labor and environmental standards.

President Obama, in each trade agreement, would ensure that our trading partners are meeting their pledges to the International Labor Organization in terms of providing worker rights on pay and organization, as well as meeting global environmental regulations. He would also provide more meaningful 'trade adjustment assistance' to U.S. workers whose jobs are lost due to outsourcing. Current TAA programs are underfunded and do not provide help to those folks whose jobs were lost as a result of outsourcing to countries with whom the U.S. does not have a free trade agreement (FTA). Obama's plan fixes that and would help sacked domestic employees acquire the skills necessary to seek and obtain gainful employment, even if their jobs were moved to a country that does not have an FTA with the U.S.

We Need Real Talk:
The last thing those of us who have felt the crunch of the current economic contraction need is political posturing from ambitious politicians. What we do need, though, are real solutions and the type of bold, charismatic leadership required to reify them. Barack Obama offers that leadership, and, in the weeks and months ahead, his support amongst voters from all across the country will bear this out.

Breaking News: Clinton to Drop out of Race, Endorse Obama this Saturday

Clinton to Endorse Obama this Saturday:
It's official- Barack Obama will be the Democratic Party's nominee for president. After months of deliberation and a heart-wrenching primary season, Obama will receive the formal rndorsement of rival Hillary Clinton this Saturday in a speech to take place at a yet to be disclosed location in the nation's capital.

Clinton, who has captured the votes of more than 18 million people, is widely rumored to be positioning herself for a spot on the Obama ticket, and no sooner had she announced her coming withdrawal from the race than political pundits had already intensified their speculation regarding the likelihood of the so-called 'dream ticket'.

Earlier Wednesday, Obama formally announced the hiring of a three-person committee to oversee the vetting process of selecting a running mate. They consist of Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of the late U.S. President John F. Kennedy, to whom Obama has received no shortage of comparison, former Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, and party insider Jim Johnson.

With Clinton having announced her withdrawal from the nominating contest, the Obama Campaign's focus shifts immediately to uniting a Democratic Party that, for nearly 18 months, has been at odds over who would be the best person to lead the country.

Selecting Clinton as his running mate would go a long way in helping Obama to quell any lingering disgruntlement amongst the former First Lady's backers, who have become increasingly frustrated by their candidate's fall from front-runner status, as well as offer Obama powerful assistance in reaching out to women, Latino, and blue-collar voters, amongst whom Clinton performed better during the primary season.

Still, selecting Clinton certainly raises several question marks. First and foremost, a longtime Washington insider, Clinton's ties to party power brokers and establishment figures runs afoul of the theme of change, freshness, and a new hopeful approach upon which Obama has premised his campaign.

Secondly, tapping Hillary brings with it not one, but two Clintons, as former President Bill Clinton would surely want and demand a significant role, were he to find himself back in the White House. While millions of Democrats look back longingly on the former Commander In Chief's two terms in office, his performance and conduct during the primary campaign has left much to be desired and, at times, cast made the former front-man out to be bitter, out of touch, and, simply, tired. Bringing this Bill back into the White House runs counter to the new face Obama wants and needs to bring with him to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

If not Hillary, than whom? Well, I've given you a little hint in a prior posting, as well as the final sentence of the previous paragraph, but musings on nominee Obama's running mate will come in a more detailed form at a later date. The focus of this hour is and must be Obama's having finally secured the primary triumph and his initial preparations for the looming battle against McCain.

In offering first-hour prognostications on the general election and the key factors, figures, and states that will decide it, I can think of no one better to whom to turn than my brother Patrick, a blossoming young progressive activist and commentator in his own right. I had not even learned of Hillary's coming concession, when I received a Word document from my 14-year-old bro with his thoughts on the state of the race, both as it stands now and as it will stand after the final ballot has been counted.

Below, find Patrick's intriguing and, I think, compelling predictions on general election '08, and, remember, this is just the beginning! The Democratic primary may (finally) be over, but the political mish-mash that will comprise the coming contest for the White House has only begun. Stay tuned for the freshest, most progressive look at all campaign happenings on the New Mexico Progressive, where we offer you the unadulterated perspective of young activists, committed to change and a more positive future for the people of the Land Of Enchantment and across the country and world. Stop back by again soon!

2008

Obama v. McCain

Part One

John McCain

McCain has a difficult task. He doesn’t have a sure base and his outreach to independents is countered by Obama’s even better outreach. Plus, he doesn’t have the money to compete in toss up states other than Ohio, Pennsylvania, and possibly Michigan. Some of the less delegate rich tossups he’ll probably have to cede to Obama.

Alabama (9)- Pretty strong red state

Alaska (3)- Very conservative state, but disdain for Stevens may turn AK into a tossup in following predictions.

Arizona (10)- McCain’s home state

Florida (27)- With Crist and Lieberman, a Democrat win would be a huge upset

Georgia (15)- Another solid red state

Idaho (4)- Despite Larry Craig, it will still be solid red this year

Kansas (6)- Pretty red, but with Sebelious, Obama may have a chance with the right amount of money

Kentucky (8)- Red as red can be

Mississippi (6)- Red as red can be

Nebraska (5)- More moderate than other red states, but it will be a tough state for Obama

North Carolina (15)- Part of the new Solid South

North Dakota (3)- If Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan spend every waking minute until November 4^th, Obama might have a chance

Oklahoma (7)- Conservative as Texas

South Carolina (8)- Solid Southern state

South Dakota (3)- TJ will win again, but Obamawilln’t have such good fortune

Tennessee (11)- Red as red can be

Texas (34)- BIG red state, but with enough money, Obama could score a moral win by pulling it within ten. I say 54-45 McCain.

Utah (5)- Mormons will turn out in droves with or without Romney

Wyoming (3)- Red western state

Total- 19 states (182 delegates)

Obama

Obama’s task is much easier. He’ll have sooooo many things going for him. A moneymaking machine, a winning message, a winning platform, and a big year for Democrats spell a huge victory. If Clinton makes the speech I want her to make on Friday and she works her heart out to sure up women and poorer whites, he’ll have a Reaganesque victory (My theory is, between McCain and Obama, Obama is the more Reaganesque candidate, with his ability to communicate and reach out across the isle; issues, that another thing altogether). Plus, he doesn’t really need a big effort by Clinton because of his massive volunteer organization that rivals the PLA (in size, porsupuesto).

California (55)- Big blue state

Colorado (9)- Rapidly turning blue and while it may be close now, Obama will widen his lead by November

Connecticut (7)- Big Dem Northeast state

Delaware (3)- Blue state

Hawaii (4)- No explanation needed

Illinois (21)- See Hawaii

Iowa (7)- He proved in his caucus win he can win these white states

Maine (4)- Very blue state

Maryland (10)- Obama will make this blue state bluer

Massachusetts (12)- He might not have won the primary, but he’ll win the general

Minnesota (10)- Obama will definitely win this state, but it’ll be interesting to see Franken v. Coleman.

Missouri (11)- Moving Democratic, I don’t think McCain will have the money to make a play for these states that are in the middle delegate wise

Montana (3)- Everybody thinks this is solid Republican, but I can’t see how it will vote for Max Baucus, Brian Schweitzer and John McCain at the same time.

New Jersey (15)- Despite HRC’s opinions, Obama will win this typically conservative state

New Mexico (5)- Obama will win this state with Big Bill at his side, but what’ll be interesting will be his impact on the local elections and how people like Harry Teague benefit from his candidacy

New York (31)- Again, despite its traditionally Republican roots, Obama will win a stunner in NY

Oregon (7)- Somehow, I think Obama will win this but Gordon Smith will win re-election

Rhode Island (4)- Big surprise here: RI has FOUR DELEGATES?!?!?!

Vermont (3)- If Dean can’t deliver this state, the Dems are in BIGGGGGG trouble

Virginia (13)- A microcosm of the entire race, it will be fun to watch how big the margin will be. Over or under 10 points (I say over)

Washington (11)- This list keeps going on and on. Yet another Obama win

Wisconsin (10)- Obama will win this state, despite his “troubles” with the working class

Total- 22 states (235 Delegates)

Toss-Up

These are states that I’m reluctant to label Dem or GOP (mostly Dem). With his money, I’m positive Obama will take many of these states of the list.

Arkansas (6)- Likely Democratic state, but that will depend on Clinton’s role in the campaign (Definite tossup)

Indiana (11)- Would be helped by a Bayh VP nomination, but that’s unlikely and a bad move in my book, but this disgruntled red state looks good for the Dems (Leans Dem)

Louisiana (9)- A blue state that could turn red if Jindal is the VP for the GOP (Leans Dem)

Michigan (17)- Gonna be a close one. While I’m pretty sure it’ll be blue, Romney is still popular here (Leans Dem)

Nevada (5)- I think Obama has the chance to form a winning coalition of Northern conservatives and southern Hispanics, but the Mormon population worries me (Tossup)

New Hampshire (4)- NH loves McCain for some reason. I have no idea why they support him. And yet, Sununu’s gonna lose. Go figure. (Leans GOP)

Ohio (20)- It all depends on Hillary’s embrace of Obama, how quickly they realize that McCain is in love with NAFTA, etc. (Tossup)

Pennsylvania (21)- Probably better chances for the Dems than in Ohio, but we’ll see on Friday when Hillary endorses Obama (Leans Dem)

West Virginia (5)- Byrd and Rockefeller will be a big help. Obama has the money to do it. (Tossup)

Total- 9 states (98 delegates)

Final Prediction

Obama- 305( I didn’t include DC in the summary above, but we know how it’s going)

McCain- 235 (I think it will be an embarrassment to the GOP that after such a long primary battle, they couldn’t win the election)

If my math is off, I apologize. My final predictions were including my predictions on tossups, if you hadn’t noticed.

Isn't he great, folks! At only 14, my bro is making predictions, the potential accuracy of which would knock the socks of those of many a seasoned political veteran. Kudos, Patrick, on your induction into the blogosphere, and may this posting be only the first of many forays therein!

Tsvangirai Detained; Zimbabwe's Political Nightmare Continues

Zimbabwean Democracy further Impaled:
While the eyes of U.S. voters were firmly fixated on the closing act of the protracted Democratic nomination battle between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, half a world away, another act, with arguably as much relevance to the United States' political climate, was underway, as well.

Zimbabwean opposition leader and front-runner in the country's coming presidential run-off, set for 27 June, was taken into custody by police as his motorcade passed through a check-point early on Wednesday. Though since released, Tsvangirai's detainment illustrates the type of draconian measures long-time President Robert Mugabe has employed in order to retain his stranglehold on Zimbabwean political power.

Why, one might ask, does this hold relevance for voters in the U.S.? Well, in a globalized world, what happens in one country necessarily matters in others, though to varying degrees and in distinct ways.

However, when the Movement For Democratic Change leader was harranged by Mugabe's thugs, at the same time as he is leading opinion polls and quite possibly already garnered enough of his country's vote in the first-round of elections to secure the presidency outright, were it not for Mugabe's having made a mockery of the electoral process., it should become clear to Americans that the time to turn our nose at international travails such as these must end.

Millions of good, honest Americans express a profound concern with the ravages of poverty, disease, and inequality that plague the African continent. Well, I contend, as a counter, or, perhaps, challenge, to these well-intentioned folks that, right now, in Zimbabwe, a humanitarian crisis is underway, and the only way to start on the long path toward recovery is to ensure that a quick, orderly change of political power at the presidential level takes place on 27 June.

With Tsvangirai in government custory, this is, quite clearly, impossible. The American public must come to life and demand of its leaders, as well as those in other countries in sub-Saharan Africa and across the world, that they take a stronger hand on not spawning regime change directly, as this goes against the dignity of the Zimbabwean people, but rather ensuring that the millions of voters in that country have a real opportunity to voice their true opinion on 27 June, without the fear of impunity for having done so.

In Zimbabwe, the arrest of Morgan Tsvangirai should sound as a war cry for progressives worldwide. But our weapon of choice in this important battle is not a gun, knife, or stone, but rather the power of the heart, pen, and mind.

Obama Turns the Corner, Sets Sights on General Election

Obama Declares Victory in Historic Democratic Nominating Contest:

In a truly historic event, Illinois Senator Barack Obama appeared before a crowd of more than 17,000 enthusiastic supporters packed into the Xcel Center in St. Paul, Minnesota, informing backers that he had secured enough delegates to attain the Democratic Party's nomination for president and become the first non-white male to accomplish this feat in the history of the United States of America.

With his announcement, Obama kicks off a five-month general election campaign against Republican nominee and Arizona Senator John McCain. McCain wasted little time attacking Democratic opponent. Speaking at an event in Louisiana alongside Governor Bobby Jindal, who attended a Memorial Day Weekend barbeque at McCain's home in Sedona, Arizona, and is seen by many as one of the leading candidates to serve as the senator's running mate, McCain told supporters that both he and Obama would push messages of change in their campaigns, but that, of the two, only he had a track record of crossing party lines to affect true change in Congress.

The Obama camp shot back quickly, calling it silly for a candidate who, over the last year, has a voting record that matched the Bush Administration 95% of the time, to label himself as a true change agent.

McCain and Bush: A Packaged Deal?
The point is well taken. McCain has worked hard to distance himself from the President, particularly as Bush's approval ratings linger in the doldrums. Indeed, he has been a fervent critic of the way in which early operations in Iraq were handled, while remaining one of the most stalwart supporters of the war, itself.

Still, on issues from tax cuts to health care reform, Bush and McCain have been attached at the hip. Coming out of their bitter 2000 primary contest and an election in which at least one reporter alleged to have heard McCain say he did not vote for the current president, McCain established himself as an opponent of the Bush tax cuts. More recently, though, perhaps in an effort to assure right-wing voters of his conservative economic credentials, McCain has effectively done a 180 and embraced the cuts.

On health care, McCain has joined the president in labeling Democratic proposals to establish a universal health care framework as socialized medicine. Despite the fact that nearly 50 million Americans live without access to quality health care services, McCain has, like President Bush, preyed upon the fears of voters in arguing that universal health care plans would take away their ability to select their own doctor, result in large queues at hospitals, and make it nearly impossible to get the high level of care they need. This, aside from being patently false and alarmingly inaccurate, goes to show the extent to which McCain has evolved from an independent maverick voice of reform within the Republican Party, to an opportunistic presidential candidate, all too willing to abandon what he knows to be sound policy in order to shore up support amongst skeptical voting blocs.

And so, while McCain consistently accused Senator Obama of being heavy on platitudes but light on anything in the way of specific policy proposals, it is the Arizona senator who seems to be spouting off rhetoric of change, while backing initiatives that represent more of the same ineffectual government against which Obama has premised his campaign.

Obama: The New Hope
Obama, however, offers something positive. He offers something exciting, new. A newcomer to Washington, Obama concedes nothing in terms of experience. As a community organizer in Chicago, he learned to effectively organize disaffected citizens behind a powerful cause and, through his gifted talents as an orator and negotiator, worked successfully to bring real change to afflicted communities on the Southside.

Moreover, while organizing, Obama saw and experienced first-hand the plight of economically and socially ravaged populations. The son of a low-income mother, himself, Obama was able to connect with these Chicagoans; in essence, he felt their pain and worked with every fiber of his young being to abate it.

Now, he brings this same conviction, this same compassionate perspective in his bid for the presidency. But it is about more than taking back the White House. It is about becoming a president in whom all Americans can believe, a president from whom Americans know they will get straight, concerned talk on important issues and, more importantly, real, workable solutions to address them.

In Barack Obama, Democratic voters have nominated someone who understands and is deeply in-tune with the pulse of this nation. As the candidate said to close his speech last night, 'Now is our time, America'. Now, indeed, Senator. Let's go change the world!