The New Mexico Progressive: The Perspective of A Young Activist Blogging for Change

A Break From The Politics

2010-08-16T18:43:00.000-07:00

Two weeks ago, I returned to New Mexico for a summer hiatus from the hot, humid environs of Washington. My journey's original objective was to make up for several months of insufficient Hatch green chile intake. However, I came away with something more profound that reminded me of the peculiar sense of human connectivity that distinguishes our unique part of the world.

A good host, I resolved to take my traveling partner to White Sands National Monument. As we steadily progressed in our hosts' 1992 GMC Sierra pick-up, I excitedly imagined the sloping dunes and sandy fun that awaited us. All was well until a faulty front-left tire blew-out about 20 miles west of the monument, ending our hopes for a care-free afternoon

Of greater import, perhaps, was the question of how we'd make it back to Las Cruces. Cell phone service was scant as the August sun beat down upon us, and fruit flies of greater quantity than I care to recall suddenly made our cab their home. Frustrated, hot, and short on water, we realized that we'd have to figure out a plan soon, or things would become quite perilous.

Finally, I connected with a towing company over the Organs in Las Cruces.
As I negotiated the particulars of our transaction, a car pulled over and slowed to a halt behind us. With a mirage-like quality, a man with a cowboy hat emerged and strode steadily toward our vehicle.

Wanting to know more about what this mysterious figure had to say, I told the representative from the towing company that I would call him back. I rolled down my window, said hello, and listened intently as the man peered into our window and reassuringly told us that he believed he could help. We popped out of the cab and made our way to the rear of the vehicle, where our rescuer happily declared that our spare was in good repair (before you scoff at the fact that I couldn't change the tire myself and dismiss me as an out-of-touch, "latte-sipping liberal", consider that we had been fortunate to not flip the car during the blow-out and didn't want to tempt fate twice by executing a shoddy changing of the tire ourselves).

The unnamed samaritan quickly set to work. Jacking up the car and loosening the screws on the ruined tire, he began revealing a few key pieces of his identity. A resident of Dona Ana, he commuted each day to Alamogordo, where he worked as a meat cutter for Loews and is the proud father of two, one a budding young musician and the other a former three sport stand-out high school athlete.

Our dialogue hit a potentially fateful snag, when I revealed my loyalties to the Bulldawgs of Las Cruces High, where I spent my Freshman-Junior years. The rescuer, a Trojan, jokingly told me that, under normal circumstances, we could no longer do business. However, wanting to be a goodwill ambassador for his alma mater on the north side of town, he immediately proceeded in his labor.

Finally, with sweat pouring down his formerly impeccably-pressed, white dress shirt and dirt and grit covering his hands, our new-found friend reported that he had finished. We immediately requested his address so that we could do right by him and properly express gratitude for the incredibly gracious service he'd performed. However, in a gesture that could not have been more telling of his character, he waved us off, insisting that he'd simply wanted to help two people in need. After a bit of back and forth, he reluctantly told his address, and we spent the ride home deciding the proper way to express our gratitude.

The broader point of this story is to show that, even in these troubled times, when it can seem so hard to find good in the world and people expressing compassion towards one another, if you look hard enough, you can see, everyday, examples of normal people performing extraordinary deeds, guided by the remarkable and irrepressible force that connects all of us as humans.

And as the political season hits full force, with candidates and parties trying to secure votes by deriding and denigrating their opponents, it is important for us to remember that, no matter the political party or ideology to which we belong, there is something stronger that unites us- that is, the human spirit and desire to do well unto one another.

But, as universal as I think this spirit is, I can't help but believe that is especially on display in our part of Southern New Mexico. Sam didn't have to help us. He was on his way home, ready to relax after a long day. Still, the kindness, compassion, and selflessness that characterizes this region lead a full-blooded Trojan to help out a Bulldawg in need.

I'm grateful to have come home, and I return to Washington with a renewed sense of what can be achieved when we take a break from the politics and get back to just being humans.

Fear and the 4th

2010-07-04T07:00:00.000-07:00

The 4th of July is a day to celebrate. We celebrate our freedom as a country. We celebrate the principles of liberty endowed in our Constitution. And we celebrate the many blessings and tremendous comparative wealth that characterize our lives.

However, just as we celebrate the many things for which we have to give thanks, it also behooves us to take a step back and assess the current state of our republic. For that, I must confess I am fearful. We seem to have reached a point of disfunction in our political dialogue. Elected officials don't listen to one another, and the most important challenges facing the American people- unemployment, climate change, finanicial regulatory reform, immigration, terrorism, and a sub-par soccer team (c'mon- there's always a role for humor!) are not being addressed in anything resembling a constructive manner.

My belief is that our country's increasing ineffectual political discourse stems from the rules and regulations surrounding campaign finance. Candidates for elected office need to spend a gazillion dollars just to be relevant, and to get this money, they need to win the favor of large corporations and wealthy backers, all of whom have their own agenda, which is often, if not usually, out of step with the needs of most Americans.

For example, large corporations who fear the impact that legislation restricting carbon emissions would have on their profit margin have, through eye-popping campaign contributions, convinced lawmakers to continue a debate over whether or not climate change is truly a concern. Are we seriously still having this debate, despite everything science and, increasingly, the vast environmental changes before our own eyes are telling us?

We're also still debating the merits of revamping our country's finacial regulatory system, even thought the one currently in place allowed complex, largely unregulated financial products to bring the global economy to the brink of collapse. The reality that a) it has taken so long to bring regulatory reform legislation to near passage and b) that this passage is still not guaranteed would be unthinkable, if not for the incredible sums of money financial giants have thrown at politicians to do their bidding and maintain a system that enables them to take huge risks, the pay-off from which will accrue to a small ellite and the fall-out of which translates into financial ruin for millions.

And, perhaps most biting of all on this 4th of July holiday, millions across the country are calling for the effective closing of our borders to persons who want to come here in pursuit of a better, safer, more properous way of life. This, despite the fact that people who most vociferously promote things like border walls, racial profiling laws, and other measures designed to restrict the "other" from penetrating into U.S. territory are themselves the product of the large-scale immigration responsible for not only our country's unique and beautiful ethnic and cultural mosaic, but our political and financial dynamism. That these folks, such as Janet Brewer in Arizona, Tea Party adherents throughout the country, and Republican Party leadership would use drug violence in Mexico and our country's current challenging economic state as cover for trying to halt U.S.-bound immigration is beyond illogical- it's appalling.

So, as we take time to celebrate fireworks, BBQs, and our nation's freedom, let us also keep in mind and reflect upon the many ways in which we still need to improve.

Our prosperity during the second 234 years of independence depends on it.

Berdych Advances to Wimbledon Finals (for the Federer haters...)

2010-07-02T08:18:00.000-07:00

Tomas Berdych, who beat Federer in a tight, four-set quarter-final match, just casually dismissed 3 seed and world #2 Novak Djokovic, 6-3, 7-6, 6-3, to move into the Wimbledon Finals. While many called his victory over Federer an upset, I disagree. As a Fed fan, I had been worried about the prospect of that match-up for several rounds and was not surprised when Berdych advanced. The 6’5” Czeck bomber has always been loaded with talent but, while he has been inside or just on the cusp of the world top ten for many years, the story line on him is that he’s never quite lived up to his full potential. That seems to be changing. Berdych made it to the semis at last month’s French Open, where he narrowly lost a five-set thriller to Robin Soderling, a match in which he was up two sets to one. While the spread will show Berdych as the underdog in Sunday’s final, regardless of whether he plays world #1 Rafael Nadal or British hope Andy Murray, I think he has at least a fighting chance of landing his first major title.

Follow-up on "Is there trouble looming for Teague?"

2010-06-04T08:47:00.001-07:00

Several readers have responded to my suggestion that progressive Democrats have no business protesting Congressman Harry Teague's moderate voting positions, since they failed to mount a credible primary challenger to the first-term Democrat.

Most of these responses argue that my point is either invalid or disingenuous, or both, since, in 2008, Teague did not have the power of incumbency, which gave McCamley a far better shot of defeating him than would be the case today, with Teague being both well-financed by the national Democratic Party and a House incumbent.

A simple example, however, illustrates the limitations of this objection. In Arkansas, incumbent Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln faces a stiff primary run-off challenge from Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter. While Lincoln received the most votes in initial primary balloting on May 18, Halter kept the incumbent under the critical 50% mark, forcing a run-off on June 8. With President Obama, Vice-President Biden, former President Clinton, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (Senate arm of the Democratic National Committee) firmly in Lincoln's corner, Halter faced at least as much, if not more, of a disadvantage in waging his insurgent primary bid to unseat Lincoln as a progressive Democrat would have faced in trying to take down Teague in New Mexico's primary on June 1.

So, I throw the ball back in progressives' court. Where was the challenger?

Progressive Flight from Teague on Health Care?

2010-03-23T11:34:00.000-07:00

By: Daniel Balke

Las Cruces area progressives have threatened to withhold support from Congressman Harry Teague over the first-term Democrat’s decision to buck his party and vote “no” in the U.S. House of Representatives’ historic passage of health care reform legislation on Sunday night. Many are frustrated by Teague’s refusal to stand with President Obama in the latter’s hour of greatest need. And while they will happily cast their vote for Democratic Lieutenant Governor Diane Denish in her bid to become New Mexico’s first female governor, they will leave their ballot blank on the U.S. House line in order to protest Teague’s progressive credentials.

This would be misguided for several reasons. First, refusing to vote for Teague is effectively the same thing as voting for Steve Pearce, Teague’s Republican opponent in the November election and a former three-term Congressman from New Mexico’s Second District. The race between Teague and Pearce is expected to be one of the country’s closest and most competitive in the 2010 mid-term elections. In other words, every vote matters. By withholding their electoral support from Teague, progressives would greatly help the cause of one of President George W. Bush’s strongest Congressional allies, who has cozied up to Tea Party activists and vigorously opposed measures close to the progressive heart, including financial regulatory reform, climate change legislation, and, of course, the recently-passed health care bill.

Second, Teague has reliably supported progressive causes. He backed the President’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), voted in favor of climate change legislation that would cap carbon emissions, and has routinely pushed for increased investment in clean, renewable energy technologies in which New Mexico has a comparative advantage, such as solar and wind. Far from a Republican stalwart, moreover, Teague has voted with Democrats 88% of the time, and his occasional unwillingness to vote with the majority has never sunk a major piece of legislation, including Sunday night’s health care vote, which passed with a three vote cushion. The track record is clear: Teague has either voted for, or at least not stood in the way of, progressive initiatives.

Third, a victory for Teague in the upcoming election would give him a freer hand to support progressive causes in future. Today’s political climate is extremely difficult for Democrats, and the Republicans are expected to make big gains in the upcoming mid-terms. Moreover, in Pearce, Teague faces a well-financed politician with wide name recognition and an established electoral base owing to his six years representing the Second District in Washington. In other words, it is unlikely that Teague will ever face a more challenging reelection battle than the way he faced this year. If he triumphs, it is difficult to imagine a Republican challenger unseating him in the near- or medium-term. Such job security would provide Congressman Teague greater ability to support measures more in-line with progressive thinking.

Progressives are understandably frustrated over the centrist line Harry Teague has walked since coming to Congress in January 2009, particularly his refusal to back President Obama’s landmark health care legislation. However, refusing to support Teague in November would provide critical support to conservative Steve Pearce in an election that could be decided by a razor thin margin. Paradoxically, Teague’s success in November depends in large measure on strong turn-out amongst progressive voters, who have now threatened to sit on the electoral sidelines. For those who support a more progressive future for New Mexico’s Second Congressional District, the best move at this point would be to bite their lip and cast a vote for Harry Teague.

Winning in Iraq?

2008-07-15T18:24:00.001-07:00

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

2008-07-07T19:16:00.001-07:00

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

2008-07-02T14:22:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-27T13:22:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-25T17:47:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-24T16:18:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-17T08:48:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-16T07:10:00.001-07:00

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

2008-06-13T19:59:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-13T19:21:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-12T06:58:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-04T20:33:00.001-07:00

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

2008-06-04T13:49:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-04T10:09:00.001-07:00

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!

Primary '08 Mega-coverage: Super-charged Analysis of the Key Races on New Mexico's Big Day

2008-06-04T08:28:00.000-07:00

It was a wild day in New Mexican politics yesterday, with hundreds of thousands of voters casting their ballots across the state in party primaries for positions from president to county clerk.

As the results continue to roll in (several counties, including the state’s two largest, Dona Ana and Bernalillo, reported difficulties and mistakes in getting ballots to the proper location to be counted), we keep a sharp eye on the developing coverage and offer our thoughts on how this action-packed Tuesday in New Mexican politics will effect the general contests set to be held in November. Saddle up, and follow closely, as we unpack yesterday’s developments.

Where Can I Get Results?

First off, let’s help you out. The latest official and unofficial results can be found by visiting the New Mexico Secretary of State’s website at: http://67.192.207.121/county0.htm

Democrats Have Edge in Turnout:

One development that stood out to me as I gave the results an initial review was that nearly 20,000 more Democrats hit the polls yesterday than did their GOP counterparts. This blog is non-partisan, adhering solely to the spirit and cause of progress and progressive candidates, regardless of their party affiliation. However, it would be silly to purport that the Democrats’ turnout edge yesterday does not bode well for the chances of progressive candidates come November.

Wilson Drops First Contest:

I was wrong. Despite a strong finish and the late, 11^th hour endorsement of New Mexican political godfather and outgoing GOP Senator, Pete Domenici, 1^st District Congresswoman Heather Wilson could not entirely close the gap between her and rival Steve Pearce, who scored a 2 point victory that was confirmed by the Associated Press around 2 a.m. this morning.

The 51-49% result to some extent confirms the theorem suggesting that more conservative voters dominate Republican primaries. However, Pearce, who has represented a stalwart conservative during his time representing New Mexico’s 2^nd district in Congress, will have to appeal to a wider range of voters in order to be competitive against Rep. Tom Udall, who scored an unopposed victory in yesterday’s Democratic Senate primary.

Put another way, Pearce will have to reach out and successfully court the more moderate Republicans who brought Wilson to the brink of scoring an upset primary victory. In a morning interview on KOAT Action 7 News, Udall was all smiles, declaring that he would defeat Pearce in the fall and that the aspect of the Republican primary battle that stood out most to him had been the bitter, divisive nature with which Pearce and Wilson had made their cases.

Teague Overcomes McCamley to Score Tight Victory in the 2^nd District:

Former Lea County Commissioner Harry Teague was exuberant as early results had him defeating Democratic rival Bill McCamley by a wider than expected margin, which was, at one point, over 20 points. However, as the night rolled on, and returns came in from the Dona Ana County Commissioner’s stronghold in Las Cruces and surrounding areas, Teague’s lead began to evaporate and was in question until after midnight, when the AP projected a 4 point victory for the wealthy Hobbs businessman.

In the end, this race can and should be seen as a missed opportunity for McCamley. Negative, attack ads were good enough to get him close to an upset victory over his better-financed opponent, but a positive, issue-oriented effort could have pushed him over the top. Teague stayed on message, focusing on the issues most important to Democratic voters, such as health care, education, and the war in Iraq. In the final analysis, this consistent approach, coupled with McCamley’s negativity, that paid off to give Teague a hard-fought victory.

Tinsley Redeems Loss in ’02, Will Face Teague in General Election:

Squaring off against Harry Teague will be wealthy New Mexican restaurateur and failed 2002 2^nd District GOP candidate, Ed Tinsley. Tinsley solidly defeated a broad field of well-financed opponents, edging his closest competitors Monty Newman and Aubrey Dunn, Jr., by just over 10 points.

Let’s be frank: this race is winnable for the Democrats. Though the seat has been in Republican hands since 1980, when Joe Skeen won as a write-in candidate and began a Congressional career lasting more than 20 years, the stars seem to have aligned for the Democratic nominee Harry Teague to mount a serious challenge in ’08.

In the past three elections, Democratic candidates were badly under-funded and out organized by Republican Steve Pearce. Moreover, none of the candidates was bolstered by an inspiring candidate at the top of the ticket and had difficulty inspiring progressive and moderate Democrats alike (note-Democrats hold a registration edge in New Mexico’s 2^nd Congressional District) to support their cause. In 2008, this will change.

Not only is Democratic nominee Harry Teague independently wealthy and capable of injecting at least as much, if not more, of his own money into this race as his opponent, the former Lea County Commissioner grew up in Hobbs and has strong ties to the southeastern part of the state, which has traditionally given GOP 2^nd district candidates their edge in Congressional races. If Teague can neutralize Tinsley’s conservative base in the east and build a solid backing of Hispanic and progressive Democrats in places like Dona Ana and Grant Counties, then he will have a real chance to win in November and put the 2^nd district back in Democratic hands.

Lujan Wins by Large Margin, In Good Shape for General:

New Mexico Public Regulation Commissioner Ben Ray Lujan, who is the son of longtime New Mexico State House Speaker Ben Lujan, won his contentious primary race against wealthy Santa Fe real estate developer Don Wiviott, securing 52% of the vote to Wiviott’s 35.

The race had been marred by attack adds, as well as a nasty insinuation from lower-tier candidate, Benny Shendo, Jr., who misleadingly claimed in a forum that, first, Lujan is homosexual and, secondly, that he had failed to tell his family about his sexual orientation.

As some readers may know, I supported the seemingly progressive positions and vigorous grassroots outreach of the Shendo Campaign and went so far as to endorse it with a few weeks remaining in the race. However, after he made the hideous, two-sided blunder of advancing dishonest claims regarding Lujan’s sexual orientation and then trying to somehow siphon support from him by arguing that Lujan had hidden this from his parents, I became disgusted and quickly retracted my support for Shendo. Yesterday, I cast my ballot for Lujan, as did thousands of other Northern New Mexicans. He should have little trouble overcoming Republican opponent Daniel East, who scored an upset win over former Domenici staffer, Marco Gonzalez, in New Mexico's overwhelmingly Democratic 3rd district.

Heinrich, White to Square Off in 1^st District General Election:

As expected, former Albuquerque City Councilman Martin Heinrich and Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White decisively won their primary contests yesterday and will square off in November in what is regularly one of the country’s most hotly contested congressional districts.

Heinrich overcame a commendable challenge from both former Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron and former Secretary of the Department of Health Michelle Lujan Grisham, garnering 43% of the vote to 24 and 23 points for Vigil-Giron and Lujan Grisham, respectively.

White’s primary was more lopsided, as he captured roughly 82% of the vote and trounced long-time State Senator Joe Carraro. GOP leaders at the national level eye New Mexico’s 1^st Congressional District as a ‘must-win’ and will pour hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars into the seat to ensure it stays in Republican hands.

Still, with the national political winds trending Democratic and Heinrich representing a young, change-oriented progressive, this may just be the election when Democrats finally capitalize on their voter registration advantage in the 1^st District and put the seat in their column for the first time ever. Moreover, with the campaign of Senator Barack Obama attracting millions of new voters across the country, Heinrich could benefit from the increased efficacy amongst progressive voters that Obama’s efforts will engender.

Seeing as how Rep. Heather Wilson defeated her opponent Patricia Madrid by a paltry 900 votes in the ’06 election, Heinrich need only run a smart, energetic campaign to put himself in contention for victory- Barack may be able to do the rest (stay tuned for a future blog featuring more in-depth coverage of Senator Obama’s victory in the Democratic presidential nomination contest, which he proclaimed last night in a speech from the Xcel Center in St. Paul, the home of the 2008 Republican National Convention).

Wrapping Up:

Obviously, New Mexico’s political developments were not the only ones on the minds of electorally oriented citizens across the country, yesterday. At a rally in St. Paul, Illinois Senator Barack Obama made history, as he took the stage at the same arena in which Republican presidential candidate John McCain will officially accept his party’s nomination in early September and told an audience of more than 17,000 that he had now accrued the necessary delegate support to become the Democratic Party’s nominee for president. His announcement was unprecedented, marking the first time a non-white male will head the ticket of a major party, and it signaled to millions of those across the U.S. that the country truly is ready to start breaking with the traditional boundaries of what is, and is not, possible in our country’s presidential politics.

However, more clearly, Obama’s triumph signals a clear desire for change amongst the national electorate. It is critical to note that, not only did the Illinois senator receive votes from millions of Democrats, he also received the backing of a significant swath of independent and even Republican voters. I experienced this while campaigning for the candidate in Iowa in early January, during which time I spoke with dozens of Republicans who were inspired and reengaged by Obama’s optimism and sincere desire to usher in a new, more progressive era in our country’s political narrative.

In the days, weeks, and months to come, an already battle-tested Obama will make his case to a broader voting audience. However, his message will remain the same: if you are tired of politics as usual; if you are tired of ‘no-can-do’ attitudes amongst lawmakers; and if you are tired of narrow, special interests controlling the priorities and decision making process in Washington, then the time has come to support a campaign that seeks, above all else, to place power back where it belongs: in the hands of the American people. The time has come to support Barack Obama

Thanks for stopping in; we’ll have more for you soon.

Quick Results from Primary '08

2008-06-04T04:29:00.000-07:00

Primary '08 Complete: Here are the Results
What a day it was in our beloved Land Of Enchantment's political narrative. Here are some quick numbers and results:

GOP Senate: Pearce by 2%
CD-1 Dems: Heinrich by 20%
CD-2 Dems: Teague by 6%
CD-3 Dems: Lujan by 17%
CD-1 GOP: White by 64%
CD-2 GOP: Tinsley by 10%
CD-3 GOP: Daniel East by 8% (upset)

Stay tuned for fuller analysis of yesterday's breaking news on the local, state, and national levels, including a guest posting from a regular reader and high school progressive activist!

Election Day Has Arrived: Predictions and Thoughts

2008-06-02T19:02:00.000-07:00

With less than twelve hours to go before polls open in one of the most anticipated New Mexican primary votes in, well, ever, I'd like to offer my predictions for results in some of tomorrow's state- and district-wide contests, as well as share thoughts on the direction in which I believe these contests will head as they approach the general election in November. So, strap in, and prepare for some pre-election pondering that will leave you well-prepared and fired up to rock your vote manana in this historic election!

District 3 Democrats:
Let's start up north. For all the money he's put into the race, wealthy Santa Fe developer Don Wiviott has captured little for himself of the one thing that could lead him to an upset victory over favored NM Public Regulation Commissioner Ben Ray Lujan on Election Day: an appealing campaign. Wiviott's sunk his money into attack ads and done little to build a compelling platform that appeals to, and relates with the breadth of New Mexico's broad 3rd District.

For his part, Lujan, who entered the race as the front-runner, has run a safe race and is well-positioned to follow his father into New Mexico political prominence.

Prediction: Lujan by 8.

District 2 Democrats: This one's shaped up to be quite a contest. While Dona Ana County Commissioner came off an impressive 12-point victory at the New Mexico Democrats' Pre-Primary Convention poised to be an electric, positive candidate ready to unite the formerly uninspired Democratic voters of Southern New Mexico, the young candidate has since slipped into a malaise, whose only relent has been negative mailers and, more recently, ripping into his primary candidate, former Lea County Commissioner and successful businessman, Harry Teague.

I'll admit it. When McCamley first entered the race, (which, it should be noted, came before Senator Domenici announced he'd resign at the end of 2008 a move that set off the very firestorm of political scrambling that opened up the Second District seat in the first place, with Representative Steve Pearce deciding to take a shot at New Mexico's open seat in the Upper Chamber) I felt excited. As a young progressive activist myself, I hope to make a positive impact on the Land Of Enchantment through a career in public service, perhaps of the elected variety. McCamley's bold decision to enter into the election and work to take his commitment to a better Southern New Mexico to the Federal level was a cause for celebration in my mind. I looked forward to the important issues he'd raise, as well as the impassioned and well-reasoned manner in which he'd raise them. I anticipated a positive, progress-oriented campaign that would connect with disgruntled, disaffected voters and return a 2nd District Dem. to the Congress for the first time in nearly 30 years.

However, the tail of the tape since the pre-primary convention has been something quite different. McCamley has come at Teague with one demonizing mailer after another, claiming the former oilman's ties to the industry, an obvious boogeyman of many progressive Dems., would leave him both unwilling and unable to stand up to wealthy petrol executives. More recently, McCamley released a T.V. spot in which he compares Teague's oil ties to those of Preisdent Bush in a suggestive manner, which more or less links the two.

Anyone who has read Teague's position papers on critical issues like education, health care, and immigration reform, as well as what Congress should and must do about the quagmire in Iraq, knows that McCamley's unfounded assaults are little more than hot air. In fact, Teague is right on the issues, calling for a vast overhauling of No Child Left Behind, changes in the health care system that enable all citizens to afford quality care, as well as a quick, intelligent, and dignified withdrawal from Iraq, so that we can bring the many brave young women and men from New Mexico, who've so valliantly risked their lives in order to carry out a disastrous executive policy, home to their families. If that's not as categorically different than President Bush as one can get, than I don't know what is.

Prediction: Teague by 10.

2nd District GOP: This one's gonna be fun. At the outset of the race, wealthy Eastern New Mexican rancher and restauranteur Ed Tinsley, who narrowly missed capturing the GOP nod at the resignation of long-time Republican Congressman Joe Skeen in 2002, looked to be the odds-on favorite to redeem his flawed finish six years ago and take over for Pearce.

However, a lackluster campaign and the aggressive efforts of not one, not two, not three, but four well-financed opponents has made this race all but comfortable for Tinsley. Recently, former Hobbs Mayor and realtor Monty Newman has surged from second to third place in the minds of most pundits, largely due to the hundreds of thousands of dollars he's received in T.V. spots at the expense of the National Association of Realtors, who have turned his decently, yet uncompetitively financed bid into one that stands a real chance of upsetting Tinsley manana.

Formerly second-running Aubrey Dunn, Jr. has, for all intents and purposed, gone away. His campaign and message is awkward. Despite having been a registered Dem. no more than seven months ago, he's come out as an appalingly hawkish immigration reformer and recently received the endorsement of the 'Minutemen', an equally appaling anti-immigration group, which is essentially a cohort of vigilantes who, in states from New Mexico to Virginia, monitor and do everything in their power to disrupt the activity of undocumented workers. Dunn stands little chance of winning tomorrow because people don't understand- we wonder if he does either.

Prediction: Expect Tinsley to eke this one out by a small, but solid margin. Tinsley by 6.

GOP Senate: I'm calling upset. Despite two recent polls suggesting the contrary, I expect Albuquerque Congresswoman Heather Wilson to close with gusto and pull out an unexpected victory in the GOP Senate Primary over 2nd District Rep. Steve Pearce.

As we blogged this weekend, Wilson's political mentor, Senator Pete Domenici, came with an 11th hour endorsement of her candidacy on Friday, despite having previously pledged to remain neutral in the race. Late, awkward, and clumsily done, Domenici's nod will yet have a significant impact on this race and, I think, give Wilson just enough of a bump to edge Pearce.

As a Democrat, I would probably rather see Pearce triumph, as his clumsy campaigning style and general inability to formulate effective policy stances would eventually catch up with him in the general campaign and sink his hopes of overcoming the well-financed, well-respected effort of Democratic hopeful Tom Udall. Still, as Tom crosses the state preaching the good gospel of progressive reform, we're happy to entertain challenges from any and all who dare.

Prediction: Wilson by 2.

More briefly, we've got Heinrich by 12 and White by 30 in District 1, respectively, and look forward to another thriller of a campaign in New Mexico's most competitive district.

Remember to get out and rock the vote tomorrow- only your voice has the power to create that progressive future of effecting social change for which we're all looking. Check back tomorrow for breaking election coverage, as we sort out the results from the Land Of Enchantment's many contests. Sleep tight, and happy voting!

New Poll Gives Pearce Solid Edge over Wilson

2008-06-01T11:37:00.000-07:00

With two days to go until the Republican primary for the seat of outgoing U.S. Senator Pete Domenici, a new Survey USA poll shows the 2nd District congressman with a narrow, but solid six point lead over Albuquerque Congresswoman Heather Wilson. The poll, which surveyed over 500 likely Republican voters across the state, gave Pearce a 45-39% advantage over Wilson, with 16% of respondents saying they'd yet to decide for whom they would vote.

Notably, however, the poll was conducted before Friday's groundbreaking endorsement by Senator Domenici of his friend and political protégé, Heather Wilson. Domenici's support could be crucial in shaping the outcome of the race, especially with the large bloc of voters still undecided on their preference. As we blogged yesterday, Domenici's opinion will no doubt mean a great deal to more conservative voters, who would otherwise be inclined to support Pearce, as they have strongly supported the long-time legislator during his nearly 40 years in the Senate.

Too Little, Too Late?

With Pearce holding a six-point edge, however, pundits wonder whether Domenici's 11th hour endorsement will be enough to push Wilson over the top. Still, the Albuquerque legislator has never lost an election and is known as a strong closer. Moreover, Pearce's debate performances have left much to be desired and left a significant bloc of GOP voters wondering if he is the best person to represent them in the Upper Chamber. Indeed, with the Domenici endorsement and poll numbers that leave her well within striking distance, Heather Wilson could once again beat the odds came out ahead on Election Day.

Stay tuned for breaking election coverage as Tuesday approaches, and, as always, thanks for reading! Don't forget to cast your vote in our latest poll, which asks which steps the Democratic National Committee should have taken in resolving the Michigan and Florida delegates dispute.

Domenici Comes with Late Endorsement of Wilson; Will it be Enough to Overcome Pearce?

2008-05-31T07:16:00.000-07:00

Early Blogging from the Duke City:
Good morning from Albuquerque! We're posting today from Winning Coffee Company in the Duke City's Nob Hill district, just a stone's throw from the University of New Mexico and, without question, one of New Mexico's most progressive communities. Making my way early from Gallup, I had a chance to get out and walk around the streets that comprise this special neighborhood, feeling an ease on my skin as the breeze cut through the shady trees and a warmth in my soul as many passers-by offered their hellos, seeming to welcome me into and onto their friendly turf.

School is out, and the summer is just around the corner. On 14 June, I'll begin the first of three days of training for the 'Obama Organizing Fellows' program, which will be followed by six-weeks of organizing for the Senator in the Land of Enchantment. I learned last Monday, officially, that I'd been accepted into the program and am extremely excited about the opportunity to promote the Obama Campaign in a state as critical (and winnable) as New Mexico.

Last Monday, I blogged on the small uptick in the level of Hispanic support for the Democratic presidential candidate that would be necessary to turn New Mexico blue in November (President Bush carried the state by a measly 5,988 votes in 2004). Such outreach will be best completed on the ground in the state's Latino neighborhoods. As an Obama Fellow based in Las Cruces, I look forward to employing my working knowledge of, and love for, the Spanish language to excite Hispanic voters about their chance to create real change later this year.

Will Domenici's 11th Hour Endorsement Push Wilson Over the Top?
In an unexpected move, long-time Senator and New Mexico political godfather Pete Domenici offered an endorsement for the senate campaign of Rep. Heather Wilson, his political protégé and Republican candidate in the race to succeed him.

Wilson finds herself narrowly trailing 2nd District Congressman Steve Pearce in all recently released opinion polls (a new Abq. Journal poll is slated for release on Sunday) but hopes that Domenici's weighing in will curry favor among staunch conservatives, whom, despite long-standing loyalty to Domenici, were leaning toward the more right-leaning Pearce in the primary. Wilson has labeled herself as the 'common sense conversative' in the GOP contest, but this, the same play that has enabled her to win and retain, albeit narrowly, her seat in New Mexico's Democratic-leaning First District, has not played well enough in her attempt to gain the Republican nomination for Senate. Primary contests typically draw each party's more active, extreme voters to the polls, and Wilson has seen her fortunes dim in light of Pearce's unapologetically conservative stances and undisguised appeal to right-wing activists.

Democrats Rejoice:
While it remains to be seen who will come out on top in the contentious GOP nomination battle, the Republican party in-fighting has been a cause of celebration among Democratic voters and, no doubt, the party's unopposed Senate candidate, Rep. Tom Udall. Opinion polls already give the fifth term Congressman a commanding lead over either Wilson or Pearce in a general election contest (http://www.nmfbihop.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1037).

Moreover, Udall recently went on-air with ads stressing his family's ties to the military and detailing his committed advocacy of veterans benefits in Congress. Udall also has a top-notch rating amongst progressives across New Mexico for his unparalleled leadership on environmental issues, and playing up his credentials on military issues encroaches on an area in which Republicans will need to dominate to have any chance of defeating Udall come November.

With several months between now and November, any calls of an assured Democratic takeover of Domenici's seat are premature. However, it seems increasingly clear that blunting Udall's momentum and uniting Republicans around their party's candidate will be nothing short of a Herculean task.

Reporting live from Winning Coffee Co., we're out to enjoy a beautiful late New Mexican morning. Take care!

What's Happened to Geraldine Ferraro?

2008-05-30T16:08:00.000-07:00

Ferraro on the Attack:
Why has 1984 Democratic vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro taken such a liking to laying into the party's current front-runner for its top spot, Barack Obama? The former New York Congresswoman was dismissed from her position on Hillary Clinton's finance committee in March after remarking that Obama has received such wide notoriety and popularity due primarily to his race and the fact that no African-American candidate has ever had such an opportunity to ascend to the U.S.' top political post. While Obama brushed aside the comment and continued on in his quest for the White House, Ferraro continues to speak out against him and what she argues has been unfair, sexist media coverage of Senator Clinton.

Allegations of sexism in any regard are serious and should be scrutinized intensely. However, Ferraro's charges seem more like those of a bittered game-maker with a bone to pick than a dedicated Democratic activist, committed to the party's victory come November. Indeed, in a letter to the editor published in Friday's edition of the Boston Globe, Ferraro expanded her assault on Obama, charging that the senator would be incapable of connecting with white, blue-collar workers in the general election, likely basing her comments on Clinton's wide primary victory margins in states with high levels of working class whites, such as West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

These charges, of course, are nothing new. Indeed, Obama has warded off such claims of an inability to connect whenever and wherever they've appeared. However, coming from Ferraro, they are particularly unsettling. Here is a candidate who knows all too well the lack of constructiveness fostered by arguments suggesting that a candidate, due to an inherent personal trait, such as race, gender, or sexual orientation, might be unable to relate to a certain sect of voters. Here is a candidate who has witnessed the disastrous results of Democrats attacking one another on anything but the merits. And here is a candidate who should, perhaps more than anyone, understand that, when voters get away from looking at a candidate's competence and ability to effectively lead, the whole country loses. She, however, seems to have forgotten these basic realities and is levying attacks aimed at debasing the campaign of the likely Democratic presidential nominee. What indeed has happened to this former progressive stalwart?

As Campaign Hits Final Stretch, Candidates Take Aim at Different Targets

2008-05-29T17:50:00.000-07:00

2nd District Campaign Hits the Final Stretch

It has truly been a tale of differing approaches in the hotly-contested race for the Democratic nomination in New Mexico's Second Congressional District.

While Dona Ana County Commissioner Bill McCamley came out as a young, impassioned voice of progressive change for Southern New Mexico, his campaign has since become an all-out battering ram of his opponent, businessman and former Lea County Commissioner Harry Teague.

McCamley got into the race to bring change to Washington and inspire 2nd District voters that they could and should expect more of an empowered stance in terms of relations with their elected officials. He gave voice to the powerful idea of constituent buy-in, which, after six years of current Representative Steve Pearce's unyielding support for the quagmire in Iraq and tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, of whom Southern New Mexicans represent less than a sliver, came as a welcome notion.

However, as the race has progressed, and Teague, despite suffering a 12-point setback to McCamley at the Democratic Party pre-primary convention in March, has shifted his focus from the real issues effecting voters and turned his sights on making Teague out to be an out-of-touch elitist bearing strong resemblance to President Bush, a suggestion whose invalidity is only outdone by its desperation.

Where, indeed, has the lively, positive air of candidate McCamley gone? We've lost the progressive warrior who dedicated himself to the rules that say young candidates don't win. As a young political activist myself, I found McCamley's audacity in running for such a significant position inspiring. However, I've become less inspired in recent weeks, as he's taken aim at Teague, betraying his initial loyalty to positivism and the progressive ideal.

Good candidates win on their own merits, not lacking merits of their opponents. Harry Teague understands this, and his campaign reflects it. Note, for examples, all of Teague's T.V. spots. Open his website, and you're taken to spots on things like education, leadership, change, and results: in other words, all the things voters care about most in this election.

Visiting McCamley's homepage, yields a different result, however, as browsers see a barrage of assaults against Teague's well-financed campaign and ties to the oil and gas industry. More recently, the McCamley campaign released a mailer connecting Teague to President Bush and being in cahoots with oil executive in an effort to sap every last dime out of the pockets of hard-working Americans. Moreover, so outlandish were his claims, that they suggested Teague actually put New Mexicans' drinking water at risk by siding with 'big oil'.

These are the type of regressive, slanderous attacks to which progressive Democrats have become accustomed in watching unscrupulous Republican after unscrupulous Republican lay in to more noble-minded opponents from the left. They are not, however, the message we expect to be levied by a candidate purportedly waging a progressive campaign to take the 2nd district in an opposite direction. I'd like to see McCamley pay much more attention to the bread and butter issues from and am decidedly disappointed that I've not.

Sure, it's not exactly settling for me, as a progressive Democrat, that Teague made a fortune by working in an industry that continues to feed the very gas-guzzling that is a drain on middle-class budgets, not to mention the well-being of our environment. However, Harry Teague has been equally as vociferious in stating his support for government and private investment in alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar, and has pledged that in Congress he'd fight tooth-and-nail to make New Mexico the leader on both fronts. That's the kind of straight, results-oriented talk voters are interested in.

Harry Teague is a wealthy, an oil man, and has, in the past, contributed to Republican candidates. However, he also dropped out of high school to work in the oil fields of Eastern New Mexico to make less than $2 per hour and provide his father with the health care on which his life depended. He's a person whose personally fitted the bill for college tuition bills of the scores of New Mexicans with whom he's provided meaningful, well-paying, and secure employment. He's a guy who will reach out to Democrats and Republicans alike on the Hill to provide Southern New Mexicans with the type of real results they so pressingly need and deserve.

While McCamley continues to harp on all that is wrong in our country, and, I agree, there's plenty to talk about, Teague has targeted his efforts on talking about how we can fix it. As a progressive, that's the horse I'd back on Election Day.

Exit Music for Olmert: Israeli Prime Minister Faces Calls to Resign

2008-05-28T18:25:00.001-07:00

Facing a corruption probe over alleged illicit campaign contributions from a wealthy U.S. businessman, Israeli Prime Minister now faces the most severe calls yet for his resignation.

Already wildly unpopular at home, the embattled PM has seen his chances of political survival deteriorate amidst Labor leader and Defense Minister Ehud Barack's calls that the controlling Kadima Party select a new leader.

Olmert has faced serious political trial before, having been accused on at least two other occasions of financial impropriety, as well as facing sharp criticism for decidedly mishandling Israel's war against the Lebanon-based Islamist group, Hizbollah, in summer 2006.

Many thought that Olmert might scrape his way out of this jam, as well, but Barak leads Kadima's largest coalition partner, the Labor Party, without whose support it would no longer hold a majority in the Knesset. Kadima's loss of control would usher in snap elections, and internal polling suggests that the right-wing Likud Party, led by former PM and defense hawk, Benjamin Netanyahu, would come out on top. Such an outcome would likely cripple the Bush Administration's hopes of brokering a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority before the president leaves office in January 2009, as Netanyahu has expressed little interest in ceding the crucial territory necessary for a viable two-state solution and also has severe, perhaps insurmountable misgivings, about uprooting Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Some analysts suggest that the most likely scenario, despite Olmert's feisty calls to the contrary, would be for Kadima to oust the current PM and replace him with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who would become Israel's second female head of state, following Golda Meir in the 1970s. This would allow Kadima time to bolster its image in time to retain its advantage in the next general election, which is slated for November 2010.

The best situation for Kadima and the Bush Administration, alike, would be for Olmert to graciously take his cue, see the writing on the wall, and bow out. He cannot oversee negotiations capable of crafting a meaningful deal with PA PResident Mahmoud Abbas, nor can he resurrect his image in time to put Kadima in a victorious posture before the next vote. For Ehud Olmert, the message is clear- your time has come to exit.

Richardson the Right Choice for VP

2008-05-28T05:58:00.000-07:00

Obama and Richardson: A Winning Pair
With presidential election season hitting full steam, there has been great speculation about the party leaders who will round out the tickets of, respectively, presumptive GOP and Democratic candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. During Memorial Day weekend, McCain welcomed three potential picks to his Sedona, Arizona home to 'feel them out'. While McCain claimed the visit represented nothing more than a friendly get together, his invitation of former Massachuseets Governor and GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, and rising star and Louisiana Governor Bobby Vindal surely offered some insight into who is on the Arizona senator's mind as Election Day nears.

On the Democratic side, there has been wide speculation that Obama needs an experienced, steady hand at the bottom of the ticket to balance a 'rock starish' though, some say, untested presence at the top. While this blog has consistently argued that critiques of Obama's experience are, at best, overblown and, at worse, unfounded, we do agree that an experienced leader could be a boon. Given the rising price of gas and the U.S.'s deteriorating standing abroad, a Veep selection with a proven track record in the critical areas of energy and foreign policy would serve Obama's chances extremely well come November.

With this being the case, the choice is clear: Barack Obama should select Bill Richardson as his vice presidential running mate.

Experience and Charisma: Richardson's Dynamic Duo
During his short-lived campaign for the presidency, Governor Richardson was seen by millions of Americans as, by far, the most qualified candidate to serve in the country's top political post. Having worked in the Clinton Cabinet as Ambassador to the United Nations and, later, Secretary of Energy, Richardson has experience at the highest levels of policymaking. Moreover, after being elected Governor of New Mexico, Richardson has continued his diplomatic efforts as a private citizen and played a meaningful role in advancing U.S. interests in places like North Korea, Sudan, and, more recently, Venezuela.

A charismatic leader, Richardson's ability to capture the hearts and mind was only overshadowed during the primary season by political sensations Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards, who smooth oratory on the stump was in display throughout his fight for the nomination, as well as on his endorsement of Obama two weeks ago in Grand Rapids.

Indeed, Richardson is, if nothing else, personable. While running in an ultimately unsuccessful, though career-making campaign for the House in New Mexico's 1st Congressional District in 1980, Big Bill could be seen manning street corners encouraging passers-by to support his unlikely bid. In 2002, during a gubernatorial campaign, in which he was already heavily-favored over his Republican opponent, Richardson actually set the world record for the number of hands shaken over an 8-hour period (13,392!). Indeed, this guy's a fierce campaigner and would take his vigor to the next level if working to become one-half of the top political duo in the land (and put himself in a good position to take command in 2016). The governor's tenacity and comfort in person-to-person interactions would benefit Obama as he seeks to win over hesitant voters across the country.

A Shrewd, Effective Politician:
Add to this the fact that, as a Congressman from New Mexico's 3rd District, Richardson was known as one of the most effective, if shrewd, lawmakers, especially in terms of bringing members of his own party, as well as those on the other side of the isle, together to pass meaningful legislation. In the fierce Congressional debate over NAFTA in the early 1990s, Richardson was PResident Clinton's go to man on the Hill, as he wheeled and dealed his way to securing narrow passage of the still controversial trade accord.

As a Governor, Richardson has continued his furiously progressive streak, stopping at nothing to get friend and foe alike on-board with his initiatives. Some state-level lawmakers within the Governor's own Democratic Party accuse Big Bill of being uncompromising and downright nasty in promoting his agenda and, to be sure, this blogger has at times been unsettled by some reports of the governor going and speaking behind the backs of policymakers to get things done. While it with reluctance that we offer support for someone who engages, at times, in this type of a politics, policy-wise, the Big Bill is rarely off the mark, and we'd rather have someone working tirelessly for the right ends than the wrong ones.

While Obama exhibits the ability to transcend partisanship and bring differently minded folks together behind a common cause, having a shrewder politician, who is willing to pressure reluctant players into getting on board behind the ambitious initiatives underpinning Obama's presidential platform, such as universal healthcare, a restored standing in the international community, and a dignified end to the war in Iraq, would certainly benefit the freshman senator's efforts to follow through on his lofty, inspiring pledges to move the country forward.

Latino Appeal:
One of, if not the most, powerful elements Governor Richardson brings to the table is his Latino heritage and fluent Spanish-speaking abilities. Hispanics represent the country's fastest growing voting bloc and, more and more, are trending Democratic in terms of their party identification (see Monday's blog). Not only would having Richardson on the ticket bode well for Obama's chances to turn the Land Of Enchantment, which President Bush won by the narrowest of margins in 2004, in his favor, it would also bolster the Illinois senator's efforts in key 'purple' states in the new 'Western calculus', including Colorado and Nevada. Richardson would even put Arizona, which also has a significant Hispanic population and is right next door to New Mexico, in play. Even if it were not to go for the Democrats, Richardson's efforts to rally support in Arizona would at least force McCain to spend more time, effort, and money holding serve in his home state than he would like.

Bolstering Foreign Policy Expertise:
Barack Obama is no slouch when it comes to foreign policy. In fact, his innovative, bold approach to diplomacy has been the subject of many postings on this very blog. However, adding a seasoned, well-traveled diplomat to the Obama ticket would go a long way in quelling the concerns of voters still leery of the freshman senator's foreign affairs credibility.

Moreover, Richardson's existing connections with some of the world's leaders viewed by the current administration as adversarial would complement Obama's fresh diplomatic outreach nicely. Obama has said that he would hold unconditional talks with notorious leaders such as North Korea's Kim-Jung Il, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, and even Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Richardson would be the perfect figure to hold preparatory talks preceding those conducted by the president, himself, and establish a structured framework with which Obama could proceed, as well as embolden a focused, progressive environment surrounding negotiations. On foreign policy, too, choosing Richardson as running mate would represent a boon for Obama.

New Mexico or Bust:
Maybe I'm biased. Maybe I just want a New Mexican at the top of a national ticket. I won't beat around the bush. My pride in the Land Of Enchantment leaves me, perhaps selfishly, wanting the attention and prominence that having our governor at the most upper echelon at the U.S. political apparatus would bring. When we look at the choices Obama has, however, it would be difficult, for all the reasons outlined above, for him to select someone other than Big Bill to round out his ticket. Vamos, Barack- vamos.

Obama Visits Las Cruces for Memorial Day, Preview of Fierce Campaign to Win the Land Of Enchantment in November

2008-05-26T17:54:00.000-07:00

Obama in Las Cruces:
Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama celebrated Memorial Day with a select audience of veterans in New Mexico's second largest city, Las Cruces, today. And what better day for him to visit our cherished Land Of Enchantment and begin laying the framework for what will no doubt be an all-out effort to win the state come November? Under a clear sky and with the stoic Organ Mountains peering over his shoulders in the background, Obama talked about the importance of devoting one's life to a cause bigger than one's self, or, more specifically, the American ideal that everyone, not only within our country, but around the world should have a real and meaningful opportunity to meet their full potential. He praised past soldiers for their service, applauded their families for the endless worry they endured in order to allow their loved ones to keep our country safe, and spoke of the uniting quality of striving for a better United States that connects military and non-military citizens alike.

Obama's speech (the video for which can be found by the following this link: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGB74D) also initiated what will likely be a passionate, comprehensive effort to return New Mexico to the 'blue' column come November. It is no secret that New Mexico is being eyed by the Obama Campaign as a key component of the new 'Western calculus' that could supplant places like Ohio and Florida as the keys to retaking the White House. Not to understate the importance of those two states (Obama sees winning Ohio and Florida as both critical to, and attainable for, his campaign as it sets its sight on victory), but Western states like New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Arizona have trended Democratic in recent years. Moreover, as this posting will show, their significant Hispanic populations, which recent opinion polls show are more Democratic than at any point in recent memory, lend themselves to an Obama victory later this fall, particularly if Obama selects Big Bill to round out his ticket as VP (or makes an early offer of Secretary of State).

A successful campaign for Obama in New Mexico would also be a boon to other state-wide candidates and could produce one of the most successful election years in the history of the state's Democratic Party. First and foremost, likely Democratic 2nd District Congressional candidate Harry Teague would be the direct beneficiary of a large-scale, concerted voter outreach initiative by the Obama campaign to court Hispanic voters. Teague will hold his own i the largely white oil country of Eastern New Mexico, but one of the most significant reasons why Dems. have had such a hard time wrestling this seat from Republicans over the last thirty years is that Democrats and, more recently, Hispanic Democrats in places like Dona Ana County and other southern areas have not come out in full to vote for the Democratic candidate. Obama's campaign could and, I believe, will change that and make victory much more probably for Harry Teague in November.

Martin Heinrich, in New Mexico's 1st District, would also benefit from the celebrity that an inspired Obama effort in the Land Of Enchantment would inspire. The 1st District is notoriously close in its congressional elections, with current Rep. Heather Wilson defeating Democratic challenger Patricia Madrid by less than 600 voters in 2006. The rock star candidacy of Barack Obama could get Democrats out in droves in this district, which already has more registered Dems. than Republicans. Moreover, if Obama's Campaign decides to focus on turning out Hispanic voters in places like Albuquerque's South Valley, Heinrich could find himself as the first Democratic Representative from the 1st District in the state's history.

Senate hopeful and current New Mexico Rep. Tom Udall will need little help in securing his place as New Mexico's newest member of the upper-chamber. Still, partnering with Obama in statewide tours would create a roaring political force that would also help lower-ticket candidates like Teague, Heinrich, and even folks running for mayor, state representative or senator, or even at the city-level. The bottom line is that Obama needs New Mexico, and, in many ways, New Mexico needs Obama. Today's posting sets out a comprehensive argument for why the Obama Campaign should initiate a large-scale voter outreach program amongst New Mexico's Hispanic voters. This demographic has not voted their weight in recent presidential elections, and, for that reason, has not had as substantial an impact as it could and should have in terms of deciding to which presidential candidate New Mexico's electoral votes would go.

It's off to the races on this important day in our national narrative, when we take time to reflect on and give thanks to those brave women and men in uniform who've risked their lives and wellbeing in order to protect us as citizens, but, more importantly, the 'American Ideal' that attracts so many millions from across the world to make this country their home and utilize its opportunity to create a happier, more secure life for them and their families. Today, we gave our thanks to those who've fought and died. May our many efforts do justice to the valiant service you so nobly provided.

Obama in New Mexico:

Hispanic Voter Outreach in the Land of Enchantment Critical to Victory

Introduction: Hispanics Critical to Obama Victory in New Mexico

According to Census data taken in 2006, Hispanics’ weight in New Mexico’s electorate is heavier than in any other state in the country. Hispanics make up 44% of the state’s general population and 37% of its electorate. However, based on historical trends, including their performance in the 2004 presidential election, Hispanics are only projected to constitute 27% of New Mexico’s electorate in the 2008 presidential election. Given the close razor-sharp margin by which President George W. Bush defeated Democratic challenger John Kerry in New Mexico in 2004, getting New Mexico Hispanics to vote at a level that is more in accord with their presence in the overall New Mexico electorate represents a critical objective for Senator Barack Obama’s efforts to win New Mexico in November. Since New Mexico represents an important swing state and holds a significant place in the electoral calculus that will, ultimately, decide a winner in the coming election, the Obama Campaign must devise an effective voter outreach and get out the vote effort amongst New Mexico’s Hispanic voters in order to win on Election Day. Such a strategy will be devised herein.

Hispanics Trending towards Democrats:

Since 2004, Hispanic voters have trended more toward the Democratic Party than at any point since sophisticated data on party allegiance amongst Hispanics has been taken. In a poll conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center in October and November of 2007, 57% of Hispanics now identify themselves as Democrats, whereas only 23% of them identify as Republican. This 34% gap is the largest ever noted by the Pew Hispanic Center and 13 points larger than the gap measured by the group in July 2006. Given the shifting of Hispanic voters into the Democratic Camp, ensuring that as many eligible Hispanic voters as possible actually vote on Election Day should become a critical strategic objective in the party’s plans for success in November.

Hispanic Voters in New Mexico:

Election ’04:

The growing preference of Hispanics for the Democratic Party holds particular significance in New Mexico. In 2004, President Bush defeated John Kerry by 1% in a razor tight electoral contest. Notable was the fact that Hispanic voters substantially undervoted, that is, voted at levels that were both far under the level of total eligible voters, as well as below the level of the state’s general electorate.

While data is not available on state-level turnout rates amongst Hispanic voters, information collected at the national level indicates that New Mexico Hispanics did not vote with equally high efficacy as the general public. For example, while Hispanics accounted for 8.2% of the total U.S. electorate in 2004, they only made up 6.0% of all votes that were actually cast. Moreover, at the national level, only 47% of eligible Hispanic voters cast their votes in Election 2004, compared with a 63.8% rate amongst the general electorate. If these two trends noted at the national level bare even the slightest resemblance to what occurred amongst New Mexican Hispanics, then it can be said that potential Hispanic voters did not have nearly as significant an impact on the outcome of the election as they could have.

An Opening for Obama Amongst New Mexico’s Hispanic Voters:

Given recent trends in party allegiance amongst Hispanic voters nationally and New Mexico’s result in the 2004 presidential election, Barack Obama should see courting New Mexico’s Hispanic voters as critical to his chances of winning the state and securing the presidency. In New Mexico, the share of Hispanic voters (that is, those voters who actually cast their vote) in the state’s electorate is greater than President Bush’s margin of victory over John Kerry in 2004 (New Mexico, according to Pew, is one of only seven states in which this is the case. The others are Texas, Nevada, Arizona, Iowa, Colorado, and Florida). That means that even a small increase in the percentage of New Mexico Hispanics who cast their votes for the Democratic candidate would have turned New Mexico for Kerry in 2004 and would do the same for Senator Obama this November.

This is especially true when one keeps in mind that, currently, Hispanic voters are more closely aligned to the Democratic Party than at any point in recent memory. Exit polls in 2004 indicated that President Bush won 44% of New Mexico’s Hispanics in 2004. If one takes into account the Pew Center data collected in October and November of 2007, which suggests that 57% of eligible Hispanic voters align with the Democratic Party, while only 23% align with Republicans, then it becomes clear that even a slight increase in Hispanic efficacy would turn New Mexico to the Democrats this November.

Crunching the Numbers of an Obama Victory:

If the percentage share of Hispanics in New Mexico’s total electorate is applied to the total number of voters who cast their ballots in the 2004 presidential election, then 302,522 Hispanic New Mexicans were eligible to vote in New Mexico in 2004.[1] However, if the 47% efficacy rate amongst Hispanic voters charted at the national level for the 2004 election is applied to New Mexico, then only 142,185 voters, or 17% of the total number of voters who voted, were Hispanic. If, as exit polls indicated, 44% of New Mexico’s Hispanic voters supported Bush in 2004, then roughly 79,624, or 56% of, Hispanic voters cast their ballot for John Kerry in that same year. This means that, of New Mexico’s projected 302,522 eligible Hispanic voters in 2004, only 26% of them voted for John Kerry.

Expanding exit poll projections suggesting that 56% of New Mexico’s voting Hispanics supported John Kerry in 2004 indicates that, had Hispanic voters voted at the overall 2004 national efficacy rate of 63% (that is, among voters of all races in 2004 across the U.S.), then John Kerry would have carried New Mexico by 21,118 votes. Additionally, and perhaps more powerfully, since Bush defeated Kerry by only 5,988 votes in 2004, it would have taken only a 3.53% increase in the efficacy rate of New Mexico’s Hispanics to turn the state for Kerry in 2004. Such a small increase would have made an impact on the election not only in New Mexico, but also nationally, as it would have brought Kerry closer to obtaining the electoral votes necessary to defeat Bush and win the presidency

New Mexico’s Hispanic Dems in Election ’08:

These findings also have critical implications for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama’s efforts to win New Mexico in 2008. However, at the outset, it must be stated that at least two critical factors regarding New Mexico’s Hispanic electorate have changed since the election in 2004 that the Obama Campaign needs to address in order to be successful.

First, the percentage of Hispanics in the state’s overall electorate has dipped from roughly 40% just before the election in 2004 to 37.1% as of late 2006.[2] While this does not represent a marked reduction, the 3% dip does constitute a 7.5% change, which is significant. Secondly, as mentioned earlier, the tendency of Hispanics to identify themselves with the Democratic Party is at its highest point in recent memory. According to a poll conducted by the Pew Center in October and November of 2007, 57% of Hispanics countrywide consider themselves Democrats, whereas only 23% of Hispanic Americans refer to themselves as Republicans. While similar data does not exist at the state level, it can be said with some certainty that the percentage of New Mexico’s Hispanic electorate that considers itself Democratic has increased notably since the presidential election of 2004.

This, of course, bodes well for Senator Obama’s chances to carry the state in November, but it is no guarantee. Indeed, if anything, the current political trending of Hispanics nation-wide evidences the absolute necessity of the Obama Campaign to launch aggressive voter outreach efforts among Hispanics in swing states like New Mexico, which will make the difference between winning and losing come November.

In a future posting, I will outline the parameters of what such a voter outreach effort should entail. In the meantime, enjoy the remainder of your holiday weekend, and stay safe and happy as you move towards summer. Thanks for reading!

[1] According to a survey conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center in 2004, Hispanics constituted 40% of New Mexico’s overall electorate.

[2] Paul Taylor and Richard Fry. Hispanics and the 2008 Election: A Swing Vote? Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center, December 2007.

Obama's right on Cuba, very much in contention in Florida

2008-05-24T06:06:00.001-07:00

In a speech to the influential Cuban American National Foundation in Miami on Friday marking Cuban Independence Day, Democratic front-runner Barack Obama said the time had come for a change in course in the U.S.' approach to Cuba. While resfusing to call for an outright end to the U.S. embargo on trade with Cuba that has been in place since 1962, the Illinois senator did say that, as president, he would immediately ease travel restrictions on Cuban-Americans, who hope to visit loved ones in the island country more frequently than the presently allowed once every three years. Obama also expressed support for easing the restriction on remittances of Cuban-American families hoping to send money to their relatives to the south. Moreover, Obama expressed support for the idea of direct and unconditional diplomacy with Cuban front-man Raul Castro, who took over for his brother, Fidel, earlier this year.

Obama's comments came at a time when he is sewing up the Democratic nomination for president in a protracted primary battle with rival Hillary Clinton and working to increase his appeal in states he lossed to his rival from New York, particularly swing-states like Florida, which hold critical implications for the general election with presumptive GOP nominee John McCain.

Obama's word choice on Friday, then, was a bold one. Typically, presidential candidates venture to South Florida to pay homage to the traditionally conservative voting block of Cuban-Americans in Miami who have played no small role in deciding the fate of Florida and, by extension, presidential contests on multiple occasions during the past forty years. Even liberal candidates like John Kerry and Al Gore were reluctant to speak out against the U.S. ineffectual policy vis-a-vis Cuba and expressed their support for more of the same hard-handed policy that has produced little in terms of democratic change in the communist country. Indeed, conventional wisdom suggests that any sort of rhetoric thought to question the wisdom of strong-arming the Castro brothers might trigger political suicide for a candidate seeking to win the Sunshine State.

However, as in so many other aspects of Obama's unprecedented run for the White House, the senator has sought out the path beneficial for most Americans and in the interest of a more prominent existence for those abroad in his approach to Cuba. In easing travel and remittance restrictions on Cuban-Americans, Obama would open the door to facilitated more frequent communications between loved ones in South Florida and on the island, which represents a measure to risky to win the express support of Republican and Democratic administrations alike.

Moreover, Obama's decision to sit down, without preconditions, with Cuban President Raul Castro would signal a sea-change in the way in which Washington goes about business in its approach to Communist Cuba. This shift, however, would be wise at least in the sense that it'd break a tradition of diplomatic dysfunction vis-a-vis Cuba that leaves the U.S. isolated amongst the international community and has produced little, if anything, of benefit to either the Cuban or American people.

This blog maintains that isolation very rarely represents the best way to encourage democratic reform in adversarial states. Indeed, direct diplomacy most often stands a far greater chance of producing desired results, as it did for Nixon in Mao's China, Carter with Begin and Sadat in Camp David, Reagan with Gorbachev in the Soviet Union, and, more recently, George W. Bush with Muammar Gadaffi in Libya. In speaking out for a break in the status quo on U.S. policy vis-a-vis Cuba, Obama risked isolation from a key block of voters that could play an important role in decidng whether or not he defeats John McCain and fulfills in his quest for the presidency.

However, perhaps the most interesting thing about yesterday's speech was that Obama both entered and exited a room wild with applause and garnered shining praise from the Cuban American National Foundation's Chairperson Jorge Mas Santos, who backed Obama's argument that a change in path on Washington's approach to Cuba is long overdue. If other receptions in South Florida are in any way similar to the one Obama received on Cuban Independence Day, then there wxists a good chance that the Illinois progressive will put the Sunshine State in his column on election night. As it stands, Florida is very much in contention.

Shendo Endorsement Retraction

2008-05-22T05:07:00.000-07:00

Deplorable Insinuation Drops Shendo from Contention:
Last week, the blog endorsed the campaign of Benny Shendo, Jr., in its bid to become the Democratic nominee in the race to replace outgoing Congressman Tom Udall. That endorsement is now fervently retracted.

Early this week, while speaking at a forum of candidates in Farmingston, Shendo insinuated that New Mexico Public Regulation Commissioner Ben Ray Lujan, who is the front-runner in the third district race, is homosexual. While Shendo's motives in doing so remain less than clear they can't be good.

First, if the motive was to play upon the fears of moderate third district Democratic voters, such as Hispanic Catholics, who might otherwise be inclined to support Lujan, in hopes of turning them away from the Commissioner's candidacy by portraying him as having questionable social values and practices, then it is certainly ignoble at best, and deplorable at worst.

Lay aside the fact that a person sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to lead and deliver results for a constituency at any level, and this is personal character assault politics at its worst. Quixotically, Shendo had positioned himself as the candidate of progressive change in the crowded thirst district race- he now most certainly has retracted any claims on that desirable conjecture.

Secondly, if Shendo's motive was to portray Lujan as incapable of understanding the familial situations of most third district voters because he is not engaged in a same-sex relationship (Lujan, by the way, is involved in what he calls a 'committed' relationship with a member of the opposite sex), he is still way off base. Those folks in same-sex partnerships are, of course, equally aware of the concerns, joys, and challenges that come in the face of any relationship, and the tide of public discourse and thought is coming more and more into alignment with this notion, though there remains substantial work to be done, as Shendo's insidious remarks make painfully clear.

With Shendo's huge misfiring, the 3rd district loses the viability of what had been its most progressive and appealing candidate. New Mexico blogger Joe Monahan got it right this morning when he said that many of the progressive, liberal leaning voters who would have constituted Shendo's small but devoted base heading into the primary would now detract from the campaign. Speaking personally, that certainly holds true, and I will now back Ben Ray Lujan in his bid to become the next Congressman from New Mexico's 3rd Congressional District.

More importantly though, right now, I feel saddened that we have not transcended the personal attacks of sexual orientation in our politics. Still, this painful realization makes abundantly clear the significance of the progressive movement and its battle to ensure that every person across this country has the ability to be treated with dignity, respect, and make good on their potential.

Obama's Working Class Credibility: Bridging the Gaps between 'Us' and 'Them' Politics in the United States

2008-05-20T21:13:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama crossed another threshold in his quest for the presidency this evening, scoring a significant victory in Oregon and officially securing the majority of pledged delegates up for grabs in what has been an epic primary contest.

Still, voters in Kentucky's primary election sent the Illinois senator a sound defeat, as Hillary Clinton took the contest by more than a two-to-one margin. Pundits were quick to argue that Clinton's victory in the Bluegrass state further vindicates her argument that Obama simply has trouble appealing to, and identifying with, working-class voters. In my piece this evening, however, I hope to debunk this claim by showing that Obama is well aware of, and has devoted a great portion of his personal and professional life to, becoming more familiar with the cause of low- and middle-income families from across the country.

With this said, let's move into the piece.

Obama v. McCain on Middle-Class Credentials:

Straight Talk Gone Awry

The purpose of this briefing is not so much to stress the superiority, and superiorly authentic, working-class credentials of Barack Obama relative to John McCain, his opponent in the upcoming U.S. presidential election. Instead, it is to debunk the notion that Obama is, somehow, out of touch with the worries, hopes, and dreams of ordinary Americans. Indeed, it seems less than helpful, and perhaps a bit contradictory, to advocate against the utility of measuring candidates fitness to serve based on their socioeconomical background by arguing that one candidate’s closer connections with middle- and low-income citizens better prepares him for taking office as president.

Still, demonstrating clearly that Senator Obama comes from a background that is entirely more rooted in middle-class, middle-income America than his GOP opponent does provide a powerful rebuke to criticisms levied by the McCain Campaign that Obama is unable to relate to ordinary Americans. And therein lies this paper’s objective. I hope to show, through a clear analysis of the economic and social backgrounds of Senators McCain and Obama, that the latter is at least as in touch and has more experience with the experiences of middle-class citizens than the former. In doing so, I seek to mute, or at least invalidate, suggestions that Obama will struggle to win over moderate and socially conservative blue-collar voters due to a fundamental and irreparable disconnect in background.

I’ve grown a little perturbed, and more than a bit confused, by suggestions made with increasing strength in recent weeks that Senator Obama runs the risk of losing out on the votes of working class Americans due to an ability to connect with, or relate to, the concerns, worries, and hopes they face. Such criticisms have come both within the context of Obama’s protracted battle with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination, as well as in speculation as to what an electoral contest might look like against presumptive GOP nominee, John McCain.

First off, let’s be clear: none of the three remaining candidates for president is hurting for income. Senator Obama, along with the salary of a United States Senator, served as a tenured professor at the University of Chicago’s law school, and his wife, Michelle, earns a six-figure salary working in the university’s community outreach department. Recently, it was reported that since Clinton’s husband, Bill, left the presidency seven years ago, the power couple has earned nearly $100 million, hardly leaving them pressed for cash. For his part, Senator McCain married the heiress to a beer fortune and has an estate worth upwards of $50 million. Clearly, no one is going hungry here.

Still, when one takes into account the candidates’ backgrounds, it quickly becomes clear that, at least for one candidate, things have not always been quite so cushy. Let’s begin with McCain. The senior senator from Arizona and former war hero was born into a powerful military family and lived on Capitol Hill for a good portion of his childhood, spending time with high power political and military officials.

Clinton is the daughter of a successful textile factory owner and grew up in suburban Chicago. Her father was, if anything, a traditionalist and ardent anti-communist. Indeed, so direct were his conservative teachings that Hillary Rodham entered the political world as a full-fledged Republican, campaigning for Richard Nixon in the 1960 presidential election and, later, serving as a so-called ‘Goldwater Girl’ for, ironically, the last Arizona Senator to run for president, Barry Goldwater, whom some call the father of modern conservatism.

In her first year at Wellesley College, Hillary Rodham was elected president of the school’s freshman Republicans and continued to advocate the right-of-center values forged by her traditional upbringing. It was not until Clinton became more aware of, and concerned with, the battle being waged in the late 1960s through the Civil Rights Movement that Rodham’s political views began to shirt leftward. After attending a speech by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in her native Chicago, Rodham shifted her allegiance to the Democratic Party, a path from which she has not since retreated.

Barack Obama’s story, however, is unique. The son a of a single mother (his father, a Kenyan immigrant to the United States, died when he was two), Obama spent most of his childhood hopping from home to home, living abroad for several years in Indonesia before returning to the U.S. To make ends meet, Obama’s mother often relied upon food stamps, an experience surely shared by neither of his presidential opponents. Moreover, after graduating from Columbia University, Obama ventured to Southside Chicago in order to do community organization in one of the most afflicted ghettoes in the country. Following his successful four-year stint on the Southside, Obama attended Harvard Law School in 1988, where he became the first African American editor of the Harvard Law Review. After graduating from law school, Obama turned down lucrative offers from law firms in order to return to inner-city Chicago and lead a voter-registration drive amongst low-income and minority communities. Bear in mind that, at this time, Obama was struggling to repay college loans he’d taken out in order to finance his college and graduate education.

Moving against the wind, Obama fought inertia and an altogether unhelpful political climate to turn large pieces of the Southside around and move them on the course to a brighter future. It was in these days of grassroots organizing that Obama solidified himself as a capable, results-oriented progressive leader. However, it was also in these days when the future senator and presidential candidate also experienced first-hand the significant and, at times, overwhelming financial restraints that challenge hard-working families across the United States.

As for his opponents, noble service was the norm, and they are to be congratulated for it. McCain endured intense torture at the hands of the North Vietnamese after having been shot down over the Vietnamese capital of Hanoi, during one of his numerous bombing raids. McCain went on to decline an offer of early release from Vietcong imprisonment, insisting that all POWs who’d come before him must also be released if he were to accept. Brave, honorable, and, to most, inconceivable, McCain’s patriotism and service of his country remains in the forefront of his mind today, as he campaigns for president.

Hillary Clinton spent her immediate post-undergraduate years pursuing graduate work at Yale Law School. As a student, she quickly became interested in issues related to early childhood development, poverty, and migratory labor rights. She volunteered to give legal advice to low-income families and received a grant to research the struggles of migrant workers under the auspices of the Senate’s Subcommittee on Migrant Labor, which was chaired by Minnesota Senator Walter Mondale (who went on to become Jimmy Carter’s Vice President and the Democratic candidate for president in 1984).

After agreeing to marry Bill Clinton, Rodham moved to Arkansas, her husband’s home state, foregoing her immediate political future. In Arkansas, she served as one of the youngest members ever of the University of Arkansas’s School of Law and later took on a role in the prominent Arkansas law firm, the Rose Firm. In 1978, Bill was elected attorney general, and the young couple became one of the most prominent duos in state politics. In 1982, when Bill was elected governor, it became the most prominent.

What is clear from this analysis is that, while both John McCain and Hillary Clinton served their country valiantly immediately after college, neither faced the type of financial hurdles faced by Barack Obama. This is in no way intended to downgrade the importance of the work done by McCain or Clinton. Quite the contrary, risking his life and enduring years of torture in order to implement the U.S. military strategy speaks volumes about the type of selfless leadership Senator McCain has employed throughout his military and political. Moreover, Clinton’s impassioned service to, and defense of, the rights of children and migrant workers make her a paragon of virtue in terms of identifying and pursuing noble causes.

Still, Senator Obama knows what it’s like to struggle economically. He and his mother know the insecurity and anxiety that accompany living paycheck to paycheck. He identifies with the cause of financial constraint because he’s lived it. He is devoted to helping folks attain a more stable way of living because he’s done it. And, in the final analysis, there is no one for whom President Obama would work more diligently than the same common folks who’ve built the backbone of America because, well, he is them.

Israeli Defense Minister and Egyptian President talk Hamas, U.S. military plane enters Venezuelan airspace, plus Obama's working class cred.

2008-05-19T19:14:00.000-07:00

Barak, Mubarak Talk Hamas:
In an unexpected show of diplomacy, Israeli Defense Minister and former Prime Minister Ehud Barak met with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in talks on forging a truce and peace deal with Hamas, the insurgency group that controls the Palestinian Authority's parliament.

Speaking at the longtime Middle East negotiations hub and Egyptian resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh, Barak said that any long-term deal with Hamas must include a complete cessation of rocket fire on, and suicide bombings in, Israeli communities. He also argued that the release of Israeli Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit must come unconditionally and should be separated from a broader accord with Hamas.

Back in the Saddle?
Barak is positioning himself for a return to the Prime Minister position in Israel's next general election. Though current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's term does not end until December 2010, many, including Barak, believe that the majority Kadima Party will call a snap-election early next year, if not in late 2008, especially in light of a recently announced corruption probe facing Olmert, which, given more time, could debilitate Kadima's chances of retaining majority status.

Benjamin Netanyahu, who controls Israel's right-wing Likud Party and is also a former prime minister, has polled well in recent surveys and seems well-positioned to take the top spot in a general election. However, Barak has been expressly more committed to winning a lasting peace deal with outside Arab parties than the hawkish Netanyahu, and voters will face a stark difference in choosing between the two. Depending on political winds when the election is finally called, either candidate may well overcome Olmert and have a second go at prime minster.

U.S. Warplane Enters Venezuelan Aircraft, Infuriates Chavez:
The official line from Washington read that a U.S. Naval plane running an anti-narcotics mission veered off course and inadvertently entered Venezuelan airspace. Unsurprisingly, the Andean country's staunchly anti-U.S. President, Hugo Chavez, remained less than convinced. In announcing the event, Chavez's Defense Minister Gustavo Rangel called the mishap 'just the latest step in a series of provocations' by Washington, which is in line with the president's contention that the U.S. is preparing to invade Venezuela.

Tensions between Washington and Caracas have been strained for some time, with Bush accusing his Venezuelan counterpart of posing a serious threat to democracy and open commerce, More recently, President Bush and Colombian leader Alvaro Uribe have accused Chavez of providing significant financial and logistical support to the Colombian rebel group, the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC).

For his part, Chavez accuses the Bush Administration of human rights violations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, as well as promoting a political and economic doctrine that seeks to keep low-income countries in perpetual poverty and politically disaffected. He has also sought closer unity with left-leaning governments across Latin America as a means of containing Washington's designs on a 'Free Trade of the Americas' pact, which would remove tariffs on the imports and exports exchanged between North and South American countries, bringing them to a new and unprecedented plane of economic intimacy.

The U.S. naval plane's penetration of Venezuelan airspace will only add fuel to the fire of Chavez's already vicious rhetorical assault, and he will likely use it as evidence to advance his alarmist and unfounded claims that Washington is 'coming'. While it is unexpected that savvy diplomatic jujitsu on the part of the Bush Administration will temper Chavez's outrage, one hopes that tensions between the two players do not get out of hand.

Obama and the Everyday Voter:
Finally, we blogged yesterday that we'd have a piece shortly regarding the thrashing Barack Obama's taken in recent weeks regarding his ability to connect with everyday voters. I am currently working on a posting that deduces the authenticity of the likely Democratic and GOP nominees' claims on understanding the plight of working-class Americans. Stay tuned in the coming days, as this entry comes online.

The New Mexico sun has set, and it's time for this teacher to prepare for another day of school. Enjoy your Tuesday, and check in again manana!

Zakaria validates Obama's fresh diplomacy

2008-05-18T09:12:00.000-07:00

As we blogged yesterday, the rare diplomatic successes President Bush has enjoyed during his time in the White House have come when he has employed an innovative, experimental approach to foreign affairs. Newsweek writer Fareed Zakaria, in an article released in the latest edition of that news magazine, makes much the same case.

He offers a defense of Obama's fresh approach to international relations, while arguing that, quite apart from the bullyish, frustrated strategies utilized by the Bush Administration to encourage political change in places like Iran, Venezuela, and, to a lesser extent, Russia, the president has scored key gains in places once considered rogue states and uncooperative elements by tapping qualities that have been far too lacking during his time in office: creativity and open-mindedness.

Take, for instance, Libya. As recently as late 2003, Libya was viewed by many within the upper-echelon of the Bush Administration as a county unripe for diplomatic overtures and a decided foe in Washington's 'War on Terrorism'. As mentioned yesterday, the warming of relations between Washington and Tripoli that began in December '03, came in response to the decision by Libyan frontman Muammar al Qaddafi to shelve the country's program of weapons of mass destruction.

At this point, the Bush Administration could have taken Libya's capitulation to represent a vindication of its promotion of the principles of democracy, free-market economics, as well as a tell-tale sign that the Bush-led terror war was gaining ground. Indeed, based on the administration's track record of hard-nosed diplomatic posturing, reasonable observers could have been forgiven for expecting more of the same in the case of Libya.

However, Washington, along with counterparts from the U.K., chose a different route, and the benefits have been significant. Rather than merely praising Libya for coming out of the shadows of state-sponsored terrorism (though, there still exist convincing and worrying reports of continued activity on this front), Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair encouraged foreign direct investment into Tripoli and other locations within Libya in order to expand the country's economic opportunities and, by extension, take steps towards further reducing its affinity for radical, violent activity. Today, Libya represents a rare bright spot on the Bush Administration's map of foreign policy initiatives.

Secondly, there is the example of North Korea. To be sure, U.S. problems with the communist state continue to abound, with alarming reports that, despite progress on the issue, North Korea presses ahead with its nuclear program and badly needed political and economic reform have been slow in materializing, if not stalled altogether.

Still, there have been, as Zakaria points out, meaningful steps taken to improve political and diplomatic relations between Washington and Pyongyang. The White House's chief diplomat in North Korea, Christopher Hill, has been willing to toe the line between Washington's strictly multilateralist policy of engaging North Korea and speaking directly with his counterparts in the country, absent the representatives of regional neighbors such as China, South Korea, Japan, Russia, and so forth.

Hill's willingness to do so has been wise on two counts. First, his more direct form of communicating with the North Koreans has offered the specific and more direct attention for which they've called as a pre-requisite for movement on the nuclear issue. On the second count, Hill has employed this direct method of diplomacy in a way carefully calculated to not give North Korea's eccentric president, Kim Jung-il, the prestige that an expressly bilateral summit between representatives from Washington and Pyongyang might engender. In this sense, Hill has been able to hold meaningful and, at times, fruitful talks with North Korea, without bolstering Kim Jung-il's claim to be a global power player.

A third and final example of Bush's success in employing Obama-style diplomacy appears closer to home and manifests itself in the Administration's handling of Peruvian presidential elections in 2006. In a region in which many contend that the best way for a candidate to get elected is by portraying her or himself as the 'anti-U.S.' candidate, the Bush Administration has had a particularly difficult time winning allies and stalling the rising tide of Anti-U.S.-ism in Washington's 'back yard'.

Bush learned a harsh lesson in the averse results that an overt U.S. effort to influence Latin American presidential elections can have in Bolivia in 2002, when his ambassador in La Paz stated just weeks before the country's general election that U.S. aid to Bolivia would be cut off, were left-wing coca leader Evo Morales elected president. Morales, who had been hovering in the single digits in opinion polls, saw his numbers skyrocket overnight and finished a close second behind Gonzalo 'Goni' Sanchez de Lozada in the general election, winning just over 21% of the vote. Riding his new-found recognition and a wave of anti-Washington sentiment spurred on by Sancho de Lozada's close ties with the White House and a deteriorating domestic state of affairs, Morales claimed a convincing victory in Bolivia's presidential election in 2005, in which he became the first candidate in his country's history to capture a first-round victory by winning an outright majority of votes. The Bush Administration's effort to sway the 2002 contest had clearly come back to haunt it in the form of Morales' unprecedented win three years hence.

In Peru's 2005 general election, however, Bush felt determined not to make the same mistake again. With a tight, three-way contest for the presidency brewing between leftist and ardently anti-U.S. candidate Ollanta Humala, centre-right candidate Lourdes Flores, and former President Alan Garcia, Washington decided to take a hands-off approach and let the chips fall where they may. The Administration felt confident that Peru's electorate would not give Humala an outright victory in the first round of voting and then, in a two-way contest with Flores or Garcia, would drift from the leftist's radical proclamations and shift into the camp of the more moderate Flores or Garcia.

Bush's strategy paid off. Humala won the most votes in the first round, with Garcia narrowly edging Flores to advance into the run-off contest, in which he scored a solid, five point victory, as voters grew leery of Humala and the U.S. quietly and successfully helped Garcia play up Humala's ties to Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, a Washington bug-a-boo and no best friend of the Peruvian people either (as I experienced during a trip to the country in the aftermath of its presidential election in the summer of 2006).

Taking its cue from its misadventure in the 2002 Bolivian general election, the Bush Administration had earned a precious ally in a region in which leaders friendly with Washington rarely prosper.

This tactic does not represent Obama-like diplomacy in terms of political preference, or even the subvert, one might argue sinister way in which the U.S. meddled in Peruvian politics. However, it does resemble the type of keen attention to, and consideration of, other countries' domestic political conditions and histories that an Obama Administration would employ in its diplomatic approach. Indeed, knowing the type of internal conditions present in a country with whom you hope to partner and in whom you hope to gain an ally represents a critical facet of any president's successful foreign policy agenda. Senator Obama, it seems, understands this and would proceed accordingly upon taking the White House in January 2009.

Signing off from Gallup, you've been reading the New Mexico Progressive- the Land of Enchantment's only progressive blog written by a young activist with his feet on the ground and an ear to the street. Thanks for stopping in, and come by again soon.

Shocking: Bush diplomatic overture fails, plus: Obama turns up the heat on foreign affairs- heavy duty bloggin' for your Saturday enjoyment

2008-05-17T05:25:00.000-07:00

A New Mexico morning sun is rising, emanating glorious pinks and oranges over the land. Inside of Glenn's Bakery near downtown Gallup, the tortilla machine is working at full-tilt, cranking out wonderful, golden brown tortillas, one after another. Yes, another day is beginning, and we've got all the political blogging you need for your Saturday. Strap in, and enjoy the ride, as we come to you full speed from Glenn's in this Saturday morning post.

Bush Fails in Effort to Increase Saudi Oil Supply:
In a not so unexpected development Thursday, President Bush, after talks with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, failed to win assurances that that state would increase production and inject fresh supply into the market in order to quell rising global oil costs. Coming on the heels of Congress' decision to halt daily additions to the U.S. strategic oil reserve, the president's inability to win guarantees from his Saudi counterpart seems to vindicate proponents of the congressional measure, who argue that the U.S. cannot wait for international oil producers to suddenly become more benevolent in their business dealings with global consumers in order to halt rising costs.

Speaking to reporters after meeting with King Abdullah, Bush said that the talks had gone well and been cordial. Abdullah added that, while he and the U.S. President hadn't come to an agreement regarding increased oil production, there had been no table slamming or ill will.

Given the last seven-plus years of relative inactivity on the practice, President Bush's attempted foray into the diplomatic realm is somewhat unfortunately. Two unfortunate elements of his attempt, however, are that it came in an attempt to win for the U.S. a cheaper version of a polluting and non-renewable form of energy and was, more than that, altogether unsuccessful. Wouldn't it be nice to have a president that actually cut the mustard when it came to international negotiation? With that question in mind, let's check in on 'Election '08'.

Obama Issues Bold Challenge to McCain on Foreign Affairs:
Wading into an arena typically thought to represent one of Senator McCain's most pointed advantages in a potential head-to-head contest with Democratic front-runner Barack Obama, the Illinois Senator said he looked forward to a serious debate with the presumptive GOP nominee on the issue of global affairs.

Speaking to an audience in Sioux Falls, South Dakota at what was supposed to be a talk on rural issues, Obama responded commandingly to comments made by President Bush during a speech to the Israeli Knesset on Thursday, in which he indirectly accused Obama of a misguided approach to foreign policy and willingness to hold unconditional talks with terrorist networks.

During his Knesset speech, Bush claimed, in a veiled shot at Obama, that 'Some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along'.

Obama responded by saying that 'He accused me and other Democrats of wanting to negotiate with terrorists and said we were appeasers no different from people who appeased Adolf Hitler...Now that's exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and that alienates us from the world.'

Quite contrarily to Bush's misleading accusations, Obama has been unbending in his stated unwillingness to hold talks with terrorist groups like Hamas, repeatedly affirming 'that I will not negotiate with terrorists like Hamas.' However, both Bush and McCain attempted to peg the Democratic front-runner to a soft and worryingly naive approach to foreign affairs.

Obama responded in a decisive and comprehensive manner, rebuffing their contentions on at least three points.

First, he countered by arguing that, historically, innovative diplomatic approaches have often been responsible for the U.S.' most impressive diplomatic feats, citing the examples of President Kennedy's overtures to Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, as well as Nixon's trailblazing efforts to engage Chinese leader Mao Zedong.

Secondly, Obama opined that 'conventional wisdom' on foreign policy, such as the brand that Bush and McCain tout as their own, has recently led the United States into a disastrous state of affairs, both at home and abroad. He argued that 'The American people are going to look at the evidence and say, 'We don't get a sense this has been a wise foreign policy or a strong foreign policy or a tough foreign policy', speaking in reference to the Bush-led misadventure in Iraq, which has cost the U.S. upwards of $500 billion and has seriously damaged U.S. standing in the eyes of the international community. McCain's hawkish, 'more troops on the ground' solution to many of the country's foreign security issues, Obama rightly contends, represents more of the same failed Bush doctrine that has further indebted the U.S. and is responsible for the loss of thousands of lives, both American and otherwise.

Thirdly, Obama makes the case that, in one of its few diplomatic successes, that is, winning a de facto peace and cooperation accord with former pariah state, Libya, Bush employed the type of forward-looking outreach strategies endorsed by the Illinois Senator.

After an aggressive outreach effort, in which leaders in Washington and London aggressively, if quietly, courted an alliance with Libyan leader Muammar al Qudhafi in order to win his cooperation in the Western-sponsored 'War on Terrorism'. Just over two years ago, Bush culminated the courtship process, which had begun in late 2003, by restoring full and normalized diplomatic ties to Libya in the form of 'Presidential Determination No. 2006-14'.

Interestingly, through its diplomatic offensive, the Bush Administration actually succeeded in getting Qadhafi to both fess up to possessing weapons of mass destruction and committing to eliminate its WMD program neither of which were accomplished in the case of Iraq, despite hundreds of billions of dollars spent and thousands of lives, both American and Iraqi, lost. Instead, reaching out to Libya by way of the negotiating table as opposed to the barrel of a gun has brought a leader previously thought to be one of the world's most ardently anti-West critics into alignment with a key pillar of the Bush Administration's foreign policy agenda.

This point, of course, was notably absent from Bush's speech to the Knesset, in which he lambasted experimental diplomacy as both dangerous and incapable of bearing significant fruit. It seems quixotic that President Bush would not more readily tout one of the few successes of an otherwise disastrous tenure--then again, quixoticism has been at the heart of his presidency.

Real Talk on Obama's Foreign Policy: Innovation, Positivism, and True Security
Reading between the lines of the current tough talk between Obama, Bush, and McCain in relation to foreign affairs, it quickly becomes apparent that, today, the U.S. stands at a crossroads regarding the way it sees, and is seen by, the world. This reality has serious national security implications, and both Obama and McCain are well-advised to make international relations key pillars of their electoral platforms. With that said, voters in November should support the candidate whose ideas stand the greatest chance of improving the standing of the U.S. in the eyes of the world and, by extension, enhancing security at home. On this point, Obama has a clear advantage.

Principally, it cannot be ignored that Senator Obama would enter Oval Office with a few inherited advantages as it relates to international dealings. As a Democratic president, his election would represent a very clear break from the Bush Doctrine and earn him instant credibility amongst foreign leaders, even those in ally countries, who've grown weary of Bush's strong-handed, at times barbarous diplomatic approach. Moreover, as the country's first Commander in Chief of a mixed-ethnic heritage, Obama would inspire new international confidence in the strength of the 'American ideal', one that used to mean real opportunity for one and all to meet their full potential, but has been cast devastating and continuous blows by Bush's pigheadedness on financial, political, and social affairs. A Barack Obama presidency offers the U.S. instant improvements in its global image.

By engaging adversarial leaders and seeking out common interests shared by the U.S. and countries with whom relations have fallen into disrepair during the Bush tenure, Barack Obama would outperform his opponents in an area once perceived as a potential shortcoming: the creation of true and lasting security. But it is just this brand of security that the Senator's more thoughtful approach to diplomacy would help to build. Building walls, levying military attacks, and cutting off negotiations engender hatred and resentment , rather than fostering the type of understanding and cooperation necessary for the U.S. to build new and sustainable foreign partnerships.

Voters need to ask themselves serious questions about the real meaning of security. When they do, they will see that breaking with the Bush philosophy, which says that those who see the world in a different way than he does, offer little in the way of potentially meaningful cooperation for the U.S. They will see that Barack Obama offers positive solutions to the country's most vexing challenges as regards foreign affairs. And they will see that it is time for a new way of doing business at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Signing off from Glenn's, this is the New Mexico Progressive.

Date for Zimbabwean presidential run-off set; why Tsvangirai must (and will) stand

2008-05-16T08:51:00.000-07:00

Zimbabwe's presidential run-off has been set for Friday, 27 June. Movement For Democratic Change (MDC) leader Morgan Tsvangirai, who scored the most votes in the first round of polling and nearly won a victory outright, has said, after much foot-dragging, the he will contest the election. For his embattled country, which has suffered under the incompetent, oft megalomaniacal leadership of strongman Robert Mugabe, Tsvangirai's decision is undoubtedly the right one.

Corruption, Inflation, and Violence- Mugabe's Shattered Legacy:
In 1980, Zimbabwe became one of the final African countries to break the shackles of colonial domination and win its independence as a sovereign state. A passionate, charismatic maverick by the name of Robert Mugabe led this charge to liberation, and the country's populous responded by making him their overwhelming pick to serve as Zimbabwe's first head of state.

However, in the nearly thirty years during which Mugabe has been in control, Zimbabwe, once a paragon of progressivism and hope in a gloomy African sociopolitical scene, has scene its status decline to the extent that it now represents one of the most afflicted, desperate countries on the African continent and in the world.

During the early part of his tenure, Mugabe stressed things like education and a workable approach to redistributing the country's vast farmlands, which were disproportionately possessed by wealthy, white agribusinessmen, who'd come to control most of Zimbabwe's wealth under imperialism. However, as the years went by, Mugabe became more concerned with his own legacy and retention of power than advancing the country whose independence he'd worked so hard and effectively to create in the first place.

Makoni the Trailblazer:
The offshoot of Mugabe's effort to consolidate power was a muted national political dialogue, which left reasonable critics within the opposition often shunned from political discourse, or removed from the scene altogether in the form of mysterious deaths and outright murder. Indeed, until very recently, when Mugabe's former Finance Minister and Zanu-PF party mate, Simba Makoni, chose to challenge the untouchable strongman, the little opposition that did exist to the president's suffocating hold on Zimbabwean political power received only scant support from voters, frightened that any form of dissent would lead to their firing, persecution, or worse.

However, when Makoni entered the fray, it sent a powerful message that things had gotten so bad in Zimbabwe, even Mugabe's former political henchmen had grown leery. And, with inflation hovering near 100,000% and climbing, who could blame them? Interestingly, it was not Makoni himself who capitalized on the newly emboldened Zimbabwean electorate, as he failed to secure even 10% of the vote in the first round of presidential elections. It was, rather, the MDC's Tsvangirai who routed the competition and, according to official counts, which were surely rigged to prevent an outright victory by the MDC leader, registered just under 50% of votes cast.

Tsvangirai to Stand:
Now, after at first suggesting he'd boycott a run-off contest against Mugabe, Tsvangirai says he will stand to become only the country's second president since winning independence. The challenges he faces in taking down the Mugabe warmachine (and, since losing his stranglehold on voters' habits at the polls, his operation truly has become more an arbiter of violent than political operations) are immense. It is not so much the preference of voters Tsvangirai must win over in order to prevail but rather the ability to avoid the downside of large-scale, systemic vote-rigging (a downside, which, to be sure, has no 'up'), as well as serious threats to his personal security and that of his supporters and family. There's simply no reason to believe or expect that Mugabe won't do everything in his power to retain control. However, thankfully, Tsvangirai has come to understand that, without a bold play for political control in his country, Zimbabwe will slip further and further into the misery and desolation currently making life there so bad.

Hopefully, his bold efforts will be rewarded with victory and a brighter day for the citizens of Zimbabwe.

California okays same-sex marriage, Bush in Israel for 60th, and McCamley hits the airwaves (finally)- Friday bloggin' from Duke City

2008-05-15T22:50:00.000-07:00

The morning sun is climbing higher, and I find myself in Winning Coffee House in Albuquerque's wonderful, and wonderfully progressive Nob Hill community, just off of the University New Mexico's campus. The place is a mixture of students, hippies, punks, and, I'm sure, one or two anarchists. Anytime I come in, I'm delighted by the flutter of eclectic conversations and am usually inspired with one or two good ideas. Hopefully, the atmosphere this morning will motivate the New Mexico Progressive to lay down an enjoyable, comprehensive entry to end your work week. Enjoy!

On a day when California became only the second state in the U.S. to legalize same-sex marriage (Massachusetts did so in a landmark decision in May 2004), President Bush was in Israel to mark the country's 60th anniversary as sovereign state. The U.S. and Israel have enjoyed a special, if, at times, tumultuous relationship since President Truman made the U.S. the first country to recognize Israel's establishment declaration on Friday, 14 May, 1948.

Now, President Bush has made the creation of a comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority a cornerstone of his desired foreign policy legacy. Still, conditions on the ground (as I experienced them first hand during a trip the region in late March and early April, as well as my observations through readings and conversations with Palestinians and Israelis living or traveling in the Middle East) suggest that this, like so many of the embattled president's past proposals, will represent yet another Bush initiative that falls by the wayside.

Now, let's turn to California.

Same-sex Marriage Legalized in California, Could Become a Campaign Issue:
In a landmark ruling yesterday, the California Supreme Court overturned a ruling that had banned same-sex marriage, making it the second state in the country to legalize such unions.

The Court was divided on the issue, and it's 4-3 decision was elucidated in an opinion statement by Chief Justice Ronald George, who argued that, based on the Court's ruling to overturn a ban on interracial marriage sixty years ago, it could not now maintain such a ban on same-sex unions, today. George said the state's constitution gave each citizen a clear and unwavering right to 'form a family' orientation, regardless of sexual orientation.

The law will go into effect in 30 days, unless the Court places a stay on it, which is not expected.

Political Implications:
Immediately, right-to-life groups in California began mobilizing to get signatures for a referendum that would appear on ballots in November to alter the state's constitution and make make same-sex marriage illegal. Such efforts could have a significant on local and statewide races in California come November, as they would mobilize social conservatives who might otherwise stay home from the polls, to get out and cast their vote in favor of the referendum, as well as more conservative candidates.

On the surface, this type of a development would represent a boon for the campaign of GOP Senator John McCain, who hopes to make California competitive for Republicans for the first time since 1988. However, McCain still struggles making his case to conservative wing of his party, and he will likely need a right-wing running mate to shore up their support come November. If he does go this route, it is doubtful whether conservative voters lured to the voting booths of California in order to express frustration over same-sex marriage will support McCain over minor, more conservative presidential candidates.

The issue of same-sex marriage has a track record of influencing national elections. In 2004, in the key swing state of Ohio, a referendum to ban same-sex marriage helped Bush supporters to mobilize voters in conservative pockets of the state, such as Cuyahoga County and other, more rural locations, who might not have otherwise braved the late-fall cold to cast their ballot. If McCain plays his cards wisely in terms of selecting a running mate, he could utilize the potential uprising against the California Supreme Court's recent ruling to make the state competitive. And, make no mistake, if California comes into play, Democrats have a fresh bag of issues with which to deal.

Bush Visits the Holy Land (or at least part of it):
On Wednesday, 14 May, President Bush was in Israel to mark the 60th anniversary of the country's founding and bolster ties to embattled Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, who faces accusations in an ongoing corruption probe (see entry from Thursday, 08 May). Bush's trip the region doubled as a basis for talks in his mission to secure a comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority before he leaves office next January. Of course, winning peace in the Middle East has become something of a final year swan song for U.S. presidents, with former front-man Bill Clinton scurrying to do the same in the closing months of his administration in 2000 and early 2001.

One thing separates Bush from his predecessor- incompetence. O.K., this quality may not separate 'W' from all former presidents, but the degree to which he displays it must come close to having no precursor. We reported on Wednesday of Bush's attempt to assuage the grieving of families whose relative have served, or are currently serving, in the war in Iraq, by giving up one of his favorite pastimes- golf. Aside from being an absolute slap in the face to those who continue to suffer from this grueling conflict, the gesture further illustrates the president's absolute inability to comprehend the breadth of issues and emotions that surround him.

Turn to his current trip to Israel. His objective is to work with Israeli and Palestinian leaders alike to come up with an accord that will meaningfully and positively affect the lives of citizens in Historic Palestine. In order to do this, it would seem as though the president would want to visit and speak with stakeholders of all different perspectives, particularly Palestinians, who have borne the brunt of economic desolation more so than their counterparts in Israel, but whose violent attacks on the Israeli state constantly give pause to ongoing peace talks between Arab and Western leaders and dominate the headlines in Western media.

Having visited the West Bank just over a month ago, I know that ordinary Palestinian citizens and families want peace, security, and an opportunity to thrive economically. Indeed, it is the lack of the latter that inspires a great deal of the suicide and rocket attacks that endanger entirely innocent Israeli populations, especially those just north of Gaza. In an absolute and unconditional sense, such attacks are inexcusable, monstrous, and must stop- period.

However, if Israeli and Western leaders want to encourage such a cessation in these horrific acts of violence, the quickest and most effective way for them to do so would be to step-up efforts to offer economic opportunity to the Palestinian people. As I toured the West Bank, I came to numerous villages in which dozens of shops had been boarded up, and young men lined the streets, sitting idly, watching us as we passed. During discussions with some of these young folks, I learned that many, indeed most, of them were educated, often having earned masters degrees or doctorates in the hard sciences, accomplishments that should entitle them to a lucrative financial existence and career in which their intellectual capacities were fully utilized.

However, this was simply not happening. Instead, due to political instability within the West Bank and Gaza, which makes virtually non-existent the type of foreign direct investment necessary to spur job creation and anything close to full employment, these men were sitting on street corners, passing the hours idly, and feeling the resentment and anger build up inside themselves. Such anger, it seems, always requires an outlet, and it was easy for these men to target Israel and its main broker, the U.S., for their disaffectedness.

Whether you agree or disagree with their conclusion, the fact of the matter remains that it is such idleness and resentment that breeds much of the violence currently plaguing Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Quelling these dangerous sources requires on the ground research by policymakers at the highest levels, which leads me to the conclusion that President Bush, if he truly hopes to win a comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority before leaving office, should have visited the West Bank to fully observe the daily living conditions of Palestinian citizens. Anything short of such on the ground observation will leave this, just like many past efforts of his, doomed to failure.

McCamley Hits the Airwaves (finally):
It seems as though I do most of my political research, at least in terms of the Land of Enchantment's upcoming primary elections, perched atop a treadmill. As I saddled up and hit full stride during my morning run today, across the screen came the young and bold 2nd district Congressional candidate, Bill McCamley. Vastly outfundraised and, this blog has argued, outworked by his opponent in the 2nd district's Democratic primary, Harry Teague, McCamley had remained conspicuously AWOL from the television airwaves since the campaign season hit full steam.

However, this morning, McCamley opened an empassioned ad in which he decries the special interests dominating Washington, which, he claims have led to the pinch working class families currently feel at the pump, as well as the reality that nearly 50 million Americans still cannot afford health insurance. Hard-hitting, direct, and altogether forceful, McCamley's spot seeks to present the candidate as the people's choice and gives no mention of his primary opponent. McCamley also cites his middle-class background and reality that, at some points, his own family could not afford health care.

Teague Maintains Popular Edge:
Despite its clear, concise, and admittedly compelling message, McCamley's ad leaves this blogger unconvinced that he is the candidate most aware of, and committed to, the problems vexing ordinary New Mexicans. As a preface, I admire the work McCamley has done as a policymaker on the Dona Ana County Commission, as well as an organizer in economic and renewable energy development initiatives in low-income communities across New Mexico. Now, he's put himself in the thick of a race that could return a Democrat to Congress from Southern New Mexico for the first time in more than a generation. Hats off indeed to Bill McCamley. However, let's get to some real talk.

Harry Teague knows real hardship and has spent his life working to ensure that others do not have to experience the same type of struggle he and his family did when he was a young man. Teague has also spent no time taking his eye of the troubling issues that challenge middle-class Southern New Mexicans, such as affordable health care, rising fuel costs, the war in Iraq, and myriad other problems that leave thousands calling for new, bolder leadership in Washington.

While McCamley has, at times, strayed from the positive messages so badly needed to be articulated by reform candidates in '08 elections, Teagues has never taken his eye off the ball. This is a guy who dropped out of high school in order to work for less than $2/hour to pay his sick father's medical bills. This is a guy who did not know what it was like to have electricity in his home until moving to Hobbs during the middle of his childhood. And this is a guy who has provided the ultimate gift of a college education to dozens of his employees' children, whom otherwise would have had an extremely difficult time affording a tertiary degree.

Across New Mexico, thousands of individuals and families currently experience the challenges once felt so profoundly by Harry Teague. I see this struggle everyday in my classroom in Navajo Nation, in which, each day, I work with more than eighty students who do battle with poverty, health problems, and, in many cases, domestic strife, on a daily basis. While I've only been a teacher for nine months, I will never forget the names and stories of the students I teach. Their dreams, dramas, and triumphs will touch and inform my life forever. I believe that Harry Teague, having battled and prevailed in similar circumstances has built his public career and current campaign for Congress around the cause of improving life for those people who do not know the dream of equity, do not dream the dream of college, and who cannot, for reasons beyond their control, imagine breaking the ravaging bonds of poverty.

These folks must be at the heart of our progressive ideal to create a more equitable country. Their stories must drive our work to create and expand political, economic, and social opportunities in low-income communities. And their plight should solidify in our minds the realization that, as Dr. King said so many years ago, we can never be who we ought to be as people, until all others are as they ought to be. We are connected in our struggle for justice- Harry Teague understands this, and his understanding underpins his current campaign for Congress and would inform in the most profound way imaginable his work in Washington.

Signing off from Winning's- this is the New Mexico Progress.

Edwards Backs Obama, Bush gives up golf, and primary season hits a fever pitch- super duper Wednesday bloggin'

2008-05-14T20:29:00.000-07:00

Obama Picks up Superdelegates and Super Endorsement from Edwards:
Coming just hours after Hillary Clinton walloped him in West Virginia's Democratic Primary, Senator Barack Obama picked up the backing of two more superdelegates, closing further the gap between him and the coveted total of 2,026 (the total is one greater after a key Democratic victory in an open House seat race in Northern Mississippi- no, you didn't misread that; Dems. are even winning in Mississippi) delegates needed to secure the Democratic nomination for president.

However, the major political news of the day came earlier this evening when, in a surprise appearance alongside the Illinois Senator, former Senator and vice-presidential and presidential candidate John Edwards announced his endorsement of Obama. Speaking to a raucous and flabbergasted crowd of cheering supporters in the otherwise GOP stronghold of Grand Rapids, Edwards claimed that it was time for the Democratic Party to coalesce around a candidate capable of building the 'One America' Edwards touted so vociferously during his run for the White House.

Moreover, speaking largely to the disaffected Americans who've seen their lot suffer under seven-plus years of President Bush, many of whom include the blue-collar and working-class voters currently vexing the Obama campaign in terms of courtship, Edwards stated his belief that Obama's dedication to, and understanding of, the real problems facing ordinary problems makes him the right person for the job of president at this time.

While both candidates severely courted Edwards for an endorsement, some pundits wonder how much effect it will have at a point in the race when Obama has all but sewn up the nomination. Still, Edwards' backing is important in at least two regards. First, it injects a blast of enthusiasm and excitement into a campaign in the midst of a laborious and protracted nomination battle, which runs the risk of outlasting voters', at times, short attention spans. Secondly, it gives Obama street-cred from a true-blue populist Democrat in Edwards and says to those voters currently skeptical that he's got the goods on kitchen table issues, something on which the Clinton Campaign has repeatedly taken him to task. Edwards' endorsement is at once meaningful and exciting to this progressive blogger.

Shocking the Conscience and Boggling the Mind: Bush Seeks to Appease Iraq Victims and their Families by Giving Up...Golf?
I had a hard time believing it, but, during my drive home from school, as I tuned into 'Democracy Now', it was reported that President Bush, in an effort to show respect toward the continuing difficulty facing victims of U.S. fighting in Iraq and their families, will give up one of his favorite hobbies- golf. Now, I'm not one to get visibly perturbed or lose my cool often, however, this one nearly sent me through my sunroof.

It's bad enough that Bush's silly and short-sighted foreign policy got the U.S. into the current quagmire in Iraq, but, instead of easing to the beating drum of logic and crafting a sensible policy of withdrawing our brave daughters and sons in uniform from this endless misadventure, Bush believes he can somehow ease the suffering of hundreds, even thousands, of families by giving up golf? How dare he- how dare he!

Let's get into some real talk for a second. First off, few dispute that the job done by our brave young women and men in uniform has gone above and beyond the call of duty. Without adequate protection, serving extended tours of duty, and lacking bold and thoughtful civilian leadership, our military stewards have carried out every task assigned to them with braveness. Sure, there have been missteps, indeed their have been many, but, far and away, our soldiers deserve commendation, not the slap-in-the-face insult conjured up by President Bush' meaningless gesture. Rather than continue to hodge-podge and poke around the problem, Bush should display the true leadership that has so clearly missed his seven years in office and call for a serious change of course in Iraq before the American public does it for him this November.

Primary Heat in the Land of Enchantment- 03 June is Coming Quick
As I work through my morning rug at the Gallup Fitness Center, the only thing I seem to see lately during the brief intermissions before 'KOAT's Action 7 News Weather on the 7s' (which, by the end of my hour-long journey, I more than a half-dozen times...meteorologist Jason Stiff and I are good buds now) are campaign commercials decrying one candidate or speaking of the truly superhuman qualities of another. Sometimes, I tune in, other times, I don't. However, one things that invariably strikes me about these adds is how indicative they are that primary season in New Mexico is heating up. With that said, it's off to the races and a briefing on the current status of the key races, as they stand in the eyes of your humble blogger.

CD-3: Shendo Taking Flight?
As I blogged on Monday evening, the longshot candidacy of Benny Shendo, Jr., seems to be winning many new backers. As I drive to work in Navajo Nation, I can't miss the unmistakable signs of his 'Progressive Democrat' campaign and reflect to myself- 'wow, there's a candidate that's really doing things the right way'. Shendo has gone town to town, community to community, to spread his progressive message of hope, equality, and inclusion. I respect his fight, especially given the setback he faces in not possessing the financial ability to hang with better-financed candidates like front-runners Ben Ray Lujan and Don Wiviott on the airwaves.

The buzz is that Shendo's chances of scoring an upset win and capturing the Democratic nod in District 3 on 03 June remain slim, but he'll get my vote, as well as those of many others' truly committed to a progressive future for Northern New Mexico.

CD-2: Teague Bringing the Heat, Pressuring McCamley on All Fronts:
Some candidates lead with words- others let their actions do the talking. While Dona Ana County Commissioner and Democratic candidate for Congress Bill McCamley has traveled the vast expanse of New Mexico's 2nd District touting his progressive credentials and bashing the ties of opponent and former Lea County Commissioner Harry Teague to the oil and gas industry, Teague has quietly put up more miles on his vehicle, and more hands in his own, while traveling Southern New Mexico than his voiceful counterpart.

Several weeks ago, McCamley's campaign released a poll that put him more than 20 points ahead of Teague in the race for the Democratic nod in CD-2. More recently, the Teague campaign countered with numbers of his own suggesting that he had earned a more than two-to-one edge in the race, despite a high level of undecideds. New numbers are expected out soon, but, with Teague owning both the airwaves and community meeting places of District 2 voters, it will be difficult for McCamley to overcome his older and, apparently, more disciplined opponent to win the nomination.

CD-1: Heinrich Jobless?
Martin Heinrich remains the Democratic front-runner in the Land of Enchantment's ever-closely contested 1st CD, but recent allegations that he's never held a real job and, if he did, failed to properly obtain a business license for it, has forced his campaign to answer some serious, and seriously uncomfortable, questions about the fitness of its candidate to lead.

Vastly underfunded and lacking a solid base, it is unlikely that any of Heinrich's primary opponents can mount the type of challenge necessary to knock him from the driver's seat. Still, his troubles on the issue of employment could come back to bite Heinrich in November, when he'll likely square-off with Bernalillo Sheriff Darren White, who enjoys widespread appeal amongst Republican and moderate Democrats alike. Will the Dems. let New Mexico's 1st slip through their hands again in 2008?

GOP Senate Primary Battle: Wilson and Pearce Getting Ugly
I must say that the vast majority of those early-morning political diatribes I view from my home atop the treadmill come either from the campaign of GOP Rep. Heather Wilson or Steve Pearce, her House colleague and opponent in the Republican primary to replace outgoing Senator Pete Domenici. Surrogates have also come into play, with national conservative value groups coming to the aid of Hobbs native and District 2 Rep. Pearce and more moderate voices backing Wilson, who proclaims her campaign to be that of a 'common sense conservative'.

Pearce has the polling edge and is backed by history that suggests that conservative candidates win Republican primaries in New Mexico, but his missteps in debates and sightings at campaign rallies nation-wide at which alarming comments on race have been made give pause to some Republicans concerned about his chances to defeat unopposed Democratic nominee Tom Udall.

Wilson would likely stand a better chance of going toe-to-toe with Congressman Udall in the general, but in a year when Democrats are poised to widen their margin in both the House and Senate, as well as retake the White House, it would take a mammoth effort on the part of Wilson to stop Udall from moving into the Upper Chamber. Time will tell if she'll even get that chance.

Udall a Shoe-in?
Yes- in fact, disregard the above subsection. Udall's got this one in the bag!

Comin' at you with all the heat of a New Mexico summer sun, this is the New Mexico Progressive, your one-stop shop for the latest beat in progressive politics on the state, national, and international levels. Have a wonderful Thursday, and stop in again soon!

Clinton wins West Virginia, Obama picks up more superdelegates, and Congress halts additions to U.S. strategic oil reserve: big-time Tuesday politics

2008-05-13T17:04:00.000-07:00

On a day when Democratic front-runner Barack Obama picked up four more critical superdelegates, Hillary Clinton took a decisive win in West Virginia and vowed to continue her unlikely bid for the party's nomination. Also, in seeking to halt the ever-climbing trajectory of gas prices, Congress voted to stop daily additions to the U.S. strategic oil reserve in hopes of injecting a new supply of oil into the market and reduce consumers' pain at the pump. With President Bush readying for what could be the final Middle East voyage during his time in office and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert reporting progress in talks with his Palestinian counterpart Mahmoud Abbas, Tuesday truly was full of hard-hitting political action. Settle in, as we come with the latest.

Clinton Scores Victory, Vows to Press On:
As predicted, Hillary Clinton picked up a sizable victory over rival Barack Obama in the West Virginia Democratic Primary on Tuesday, capitalizing on the state's large population of blue collar, socially conservative voters in doing so. Her campaign has already begun making the case that Tuesday's win raises further questions about Obama's ability to appeal to working class voters, whose support will be critical in swing states like West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania come November. Clinton aides maintain that their candidate's victories in those states' primary contests makes her a stronger candidate than Obama to take on GOP nominee John McCain.

Obama Keeps Up Momentum:
Meanwhile, Senator Obama spent Tuesday campaigning in key electoral states and ushered in Clinton's win by speaking to voters in the critical Midwest state of Missouri, in which he scored an unexpected and late-breaking victory on Super Tuesday. Earlier in the day, the Illinois Senator continued his march toward the 2,025 delegates necessary to capture the nomination, picking up the support of three new superdelegates, including former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee and Colorado Governor Roy Romer, as well as New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin.

With these pick-ups, as well as the surge of superdelegates into his column since impressive showings last Tuesday in North Carolina and Indiana made his nomination appear all but in the bag, Obama stands poised to gain enough delegate support to reach the necessary minimum to claim victory before primary voting wraps up on 03 June. In the latest count, Obama has 1875.5 delegates to 1,1712 for Clinton and needs a mere 149.5 to win the nomination. Since last Tuesday, moreover, Obama has picked up at least new supporters, a pace that, if continued, would seal the deal for the Illinois Senator by the end of May.

Next week, the Democratic contest casts a spotlight on Kentucky and Oregon, which are seen by some as potential battleground states in the November election. Though Oregon went solidly for Senator John Kerry in 2004, President Bush came within a few thousand votes of winning it in his initial bid for the White House, and McCain has already spent significant time and money in the state looking to lay a framework for upset.

Kentucky, on the other hand, is a state that has gone red in the last couple of cycles but that former Democratic President Bill Clinton picked up in 1992 on his way to Pennsylvania Avenue and won again in his reelection campaign in 1996. Now, his wife claims that she has the populist appeal and support amongst socially conservative and moderate voters to place it back in the blue column in a race against McCain. Obama counters that his 'trans-partisan' approach to political gaming will make possible victories in states like North Carolina, South Carolina, and even rural places like South Dakota and Kansas, wherein voters seem to look more into a candidate's personal qualities and capabilities as a decision maker than party allegiance. Whatever the case, next Tuesday's results will have implications that reverberate well after the Democratic nomination is decided.

Congress Moves on Oil Prices:
With oil prices setting record highs on an almost daily basis, Congress took steps today to inject more product into the market, in hopes of bringing consumer costs under control. In one-sided votes, the House and Senate passed measures that would halt increases to the country's strategic oil reserves until at least the end of this year. The strategic oil reserve is a vast holding of oil that the U.S. keeps in order to guard against price shocks in the time of disaster, whether environmental, political, or otherwise, in oil producing states. The oil is held in large, underground salt domes in the Gulf Coast and receives a daily boost of nearly 80,000 barrels per day.

Still, with petrol prices approaching $4/gallon and global oil prices showing no signs of slowing their ascent, many lawmakers made the argument that price shocks were already well underway. It made no sense, they said, to continue stashing oil away when consumers are already feeling the pinch when they try to summon adequate funds to fill their gas tanks, often having to cut food, medicine, and other key items from their family budget in order to get from point 'A' to point 'B'. By releasing that nearly 80,000 gallons of oil into the market, Congressional members hoped to increase supply enough to create a significant reduction in petrol costs.

Still, critics counter that adding this amount to daily supply would do next to nothing to stop rising oil costs. 77,000 gallons, they argue, constitutes a mere 1/10 of one percent of daily global oil production, and making it available for purchase stands little chance of benefiting the average American consumer. However, it does, they maintain, prevent the U.S. from contributing to its national security in the form of increased oil reserves.

In the final analysis, both proponents and critiques are right. In terms of the former, Congress does need to take the limited steps within its power to halt rising oil and gas prices. With strategic oil reserves by no means at alarmingly low levels, it seems reasonable to release some of their inflow into the market for consumer use. Still, the numbers don't lie, and this measure will most likely not help gas buyers all that much.

The real answer, and the dirty business that Congress and the Bush Administration have failed to do, is creating a comprehensive energy policy that weans the U.S. off its dependency of nonrenewable resources, like oil, which are produced, to a significant degree, in politically unstable locations. Indeed, until lawmakers, business leaders, and the public, more generally, uncover the discomforting truth that a vast change in lifestyle may be the only real way to halt our current energy crisis, change on the level it is needed may be far off- unfortunately, Mother Nature doesn't pause for such indecision.

Join us tomorrow for version 'Wednesday'. We'll do our best to bring you the news fresh, hard-hitting, and with a side of personality. Thanks for stopping in, and come on back soon.

Bloggin on a May weekday

2008-05-12T19:48:00.001-07:00

Just when you thought that the mighty New Mexican spring-time winds had done their damage and called it a year, the gusts were out in full steam today, starting their howls before the sun made its first appearance and lingering even as I put words to screen and come your way with the latest hard-hitting political action from the Land of Enchantment. It may be windy, but, if you like campaign excitement, New Mexico's the place for you. Buckle up, and settle in for the latest commentary.

Shendo Getting a Second Look in CD-3?
With front-runners Ben Ray Lujan and Don Wiviott locked in a heated contest for the Democratic nomination in the race to replace outgoing Congressman and senatorial candidate Tom Udall, former Indian Affairs Secretary Benny Shendo, Jr., has quietly worked himself into the race and is getting a second look from many voters (this blogger included) across Northern New Mexico.

Boasting a wealth of experience working in areas across the policy spectrum at the cabinet level in the Land of Enchantment, Shendo has mapped out a progressive platform and is passionately taking his message to voters. Himself a cultural cornucopia, Shendo hails from the Jemez Pueblo and speaks several Native American languages, Spanish, and English.

Some 3rd district voters, myself included, have been less than inspired by Lujan, who serves on the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission and is son of state House Speaker Ben Lujan, or his rival Wiviott, who is a wealthy realtor from Santa Fe, who initially planned to compete for Senator Domenici's Senate seat before the grandfather of New Mexican politics announced his coming, premature retirement and ushered in a groundswell of interest from better-known Democratic candidates, including Udall and, briefly, Duke City Mayor Martin Chavez.

Little polling exists to confirm Lujan's and Wiviott's front-runner status (or, for that matter, pick up on a possible surge by Shendo), but each candidate has flooded the airwaves in recent weeks with ads touting their progressive credentials and strong-minded ideals to our country's and state's most vexing issues, including finding and implementing an aggressive, workable exit strategy from Iraq or making New Mexico the leader in the U.S. push for innovation in wind and solar renewable energy resource development.

Shendo, a less well-funded candidate, cannot afford the airtime of his two more prosperous opponents, but unlike his similarly financially-suited counterpart in the 2nd District, McCamley, has refrained from slamming his opponents with negative press releases and public comments and, instead, mobilized his support at the grassroots level in order to affirmatively promote his campaign to a disaffected electoral community thirsting for change in Washington.

With Congressman Udall having enjoyed wildly high approval ratings as the 3rd district's go to guy on The Hill, the next representative from the state's youngest Congressional District will have some mighty big shoes to fill. However, with his affirmative, no-holds bar appeal to voters' better judgment, Benny Shendo, Jr., is showing voters and his opponents alike that he is in this race to win and will stop at nothing to spread his progressive message before voting on 03 June.

Happy Mother's Day and a dose of politics for your Sunday

2008-05-11T10:06:00.000-07:00

On a day when mothers across the country finally get the token of appreciation of which their daily commitment, love, and affection is so very deserving, we offer a bit of political commentary to go with your afternoon celebration. Hopefully, mom got the gift(s) she wanted for her big day, but, if this blogger is anywhere near the mark, for most mothers, spending time with loved ones represents the best gift imaginable. Mothers, this day's for you.

What's Next for Clinton:

Obama-Clinton?
With Barack Obama's victory in the Democratic nomination battle in the bag, political pundits on Sunday morning talk shows focused their attention on entertaining thoughts regarding what Hillary Clinton would do after conceding the race.

Some suggested she could have her sights set on becoming Obama's running mate, reckoning that doing so would leave her well-positioned to be the party's candidate come 2012, were Obama to lose to Republican John McCain in November.

Others, however, argued that Clinton has never been keen to sharing the spotlight, particularly in a subordinate position. It is also unlikely, skeptics maintained, that Obama would open the door to Clinton and all the baggage, both good and bad, that that name brings with it, even if Hillary expressed her desire to run as his VP.

Adding Clinton to his ticket could bring several demographics into the Democrats' camp come November that Obama might otherwise have trouble courting, including low-income, blue-collar workers, some of the New York Senator's most ardent female supporters, as well as those who, sadly, still cannot bring themselves to support an African American candidate for president. Indeed, a website has been launched encouraging whomever eventually captures the Democratic nod to choose their rival as VP for the sake of unifying the party (together08.com). Interestingly, however, the site gained a great deal of steam after Obama's victory and narrow loss in North Carolina and Indiana, respectively, last Tuesday, and this blogger suspects that the site's flood of signatures came largely from disgruntled Clinton backers finally reconciling themselves to the near certainty that she will not win the nomination.

Personally, the idea of an Obama-Clinton ticket, while somewhat appealing, just doesn't cut the mustard. I don't endorse the old-style politics that the Clinton campaign has played in courting support and, more recently, trying to wrestle it away from Obama. Moreover, I've viewed Clinton as chameleon-like at times, trying to be all things to all people in order to pick up votes. For example, she at once courts the backing of blue-collar union voters, a key constituency of the Democratic Party, while maintaining that it is perfectly legitimate for elite superdelegates to determine the fate of the party's nomination.

She's also, if indirectly, played upon people's fears of Obama's ties to Islam, with surrogates sending pictures of Obama in traditional Somalian garb to the Drudge Report, hoping this would stir fears in voters' minds that the Illinois Senator is, in fact, himself a Muslim. To me, this was and is inexcusable, largely resembling the smear tactics employed by Karl Rove and company in 2000 to remove Senator John McCain from the tough GOP primary battle. If you recall, the Bush Campaign, after getting trounced by McCain in the New Hampshire primary, launched push polling in South Carolina in which it suggested to voters that the Arizona Senator had fathered an illegitimate child with an African American mother. McCain subsequently lost that state's contest, erupted in anger at the Christian Right, and watched his chances of capturing the GOP nomination go down the drain.

The idea that Clinton would utilize a brand of campaigning in any way similar to these disgusting tactics both resembles the type of politics we need to get away from to progress as a country, as well as a critical reason why I find it extremely difficult to back the notion of an Obama-Clinton ticket.

Senate Majority Leader:
A more likely scenario, I think, and one that was articulated by a good number of pundits in Chris Matthews' roundtable discussion this morning is the idea that Clinton would take over the reins from Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Reid is rumored by some to not like his position as party leader all too much, and his reserved personality has led many to question his leadership credentials. Moreover, despite entering the majority with big goals, Senate Democrats have failed to produce much of anything in terms of substantive legislation, let alone actualize the bold proposals they articulated upon taking control in January 2007. Reid, of course, is not entirely to blame for such failures, but, as Majority Leader, the buck must and does stop with him.

With that said, some surmise that a passing of the torch from Reid to Clinton is a likely scenario. There are even some reports that Reid has recently, in attempts to, as a good Democrat hoping to unite the party for November, told Clinton he'd be willing to give up his position and offer her a graceful exit from the primary race. Still, though an ardent proponent of the importance of Federal government, it is less than clear whether or not Clinton could content herself within the confining walls of the Senate Chambers. Her career, as some pundits have pointed out, has been one characterized by ascension: from First Lady to Senator to Democratic front-runner for the White House. Remaining in the Senate would represent a significant and perhaps unacceptable alteration in her political journey.

Governor of New York:
Some who question the likelihood of an Obama-Clinton ticket but still believe that the latter has her sights set squarely on making another bid for the presidency argue that she may make a run for her state's top executive position in the Empire State's gubernatorial election in 2010. Adding executive experience to her resume would further strengthen an already impressive track record and make her an even more attractive national candidate in 2012, were Obama to falter this November.

Still, a Clinton run for governor is unlikely for at least two reasons. First, Clinton has never been fond of state politics. Indeed, she's made a career of lobbying for change at the Federal level and, as many stated on this morning's talk shows, Washington is much more of a home to the Senator than Albany ever would be.

Secondly, New York's recently appointed Governor, David Patterson, is thought by many to have his sights set on becoming the state's elected leader come 2010. It is extremely unlikely that Clinton would challenge the charismatic and well-liked Patterson in a primary duel. Moreover, a loss in a primary contest at the state level would likely quash any notions of a future Clinton presidency.

Then What will she Do?
In this blogger's opinion, Clinton will not be Obama's VP in November. She will work vigorously for him during the general election campaign and seek to portray herself as a gracious loser and warrior for the Democratic Party, in order to win or maintain the good graces of party leaders and position herself for another run in 2012, if McCain defeats Obama. If Obama were to defeat McCain, which, given current political winds and the Obama Campaign's impressive and growing dynamism, is an extremely likely possibility, Hillary Clinton, at 67, would still be able to mount another bid for the White House. Moreover, after eight more years of dedicated service to the American people and Democratic Party in the Senate, as well as making possible eight years of a Democratic Administration by bowing out gracefully and enthusiastically supporting Obama, Clinton will have won herself many new supporters, including, perhaps, yours truly.

The path in front of Hillary Clinton is uncertain. However, she would be well-advised to conclude that the '08 presidential election is about more than herself. It is about a country desperately in need of new, forward-looking leadership and progressive solutions to its people's most vexing problems. It cannot be easy for someone who once thought it her destiny to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania to step aside in her quest for the White House, but one thing she has undoubtedly learned over the course of a productive and in many ways admirable career of public service is that life rarely follows a predictable path.

Bloggin' in the Evening: Catastrophe in Burma, and Obama clips Clinton in race for superdelegates

2008-05-10T20:43:00.001-07:00

Whether morning or night, the time is always right for some hard-nosed political bloggin'. Thanks for stopping by for the coverage- now, let's get it started.

No Time for 'Democracy' in Burma:
As tens of thousands of Burmese citizens clung to survival Saturday, the country's ruling military junta insisted, in many cases with the barrel of a gun, it is reported, that its citizens take part in a national referendum on reformation of the country's constitution.

The election, military leaders said, is a key step on the country's path toward a democratic election in 2010. But even the most ardently pro-democratic outsiders, who already viewed the junta's pledges in support of, and movement towards, citizen-run government with much skepticism, were outraged by the junta's devotion of any resources toward an election at a time when as many as 100,000 Burmese have died due to a cyclone that hit the country one week ago and hundreds of thousands more now live on the brink of death, in light of severe food and clean water shortages.

Burmese officials have been criticized this week by leaders of the United Nations and World Food Programme for their unwillingness to allow aid workers enter and make deliveries in the country more quickly. Moreover, some argue that generals have labeled food aid as home-grown and are using the distribution of the high-energy biscuits provided by foreign donors as a propaganda tool to show cyclone sufferers that the government is doing its part to restore order and quell the suffering of the masses.

Still, signs of hope emerged today as foreign aid workers were able to, in fits and start, get some of their vital materials into the country, and a U.S. aid plane is said to have been given clearance for a delivery on Monday. However, with hundreds of thousands of citizens fighting for survival, every minute in which aid is denied those hardest hit is one minute too many and could bring the already unconscionable death toll ever higher.

Obama on the Move, Overtakes Clinton in Superdelegate Tally:
Building on a swath of new superdelegate support announced Friday, Obama, on Saturday, picked up the backing of five new supers from Ohio, Arizona, Utah, and two from the Virgin Islands, who'd previously given their endorsement to Hillary Clinton.

with the party elite coalescing behind the idea of an Obama nomination, Clinton's days in the race for the presidency are numbered.

According to the AP, Senator Obama now leads Clinton 276-271.5 in the critical race for the party leaders who will, ultimately, decide the Democratic nomination. Having trailed Obama in the contest for pledged delegates for some time, Clinton had relied on the support of superdelegates in her capmaign's math for the nod. Many of these officials, pundits reckoned, would remain loyal to Hillary because of ties established with the Clintons during their time in the White House. However, even allegiance to Bill has not prevented many from detracting to the Obama camp, with notable examples including New Mexico Governor Big Bill, as well as Joe Andrew of Indiana, a former head of the Democratic National Committee, who took the helm with the backing of Bill Clinton in the late 1990s.

Losing her edge among superdelegates further muddles Clinton's potential for winning the nomination. She now trails Obama by a margin of nearly 170 delegates, pledged and super, and would need huge margins of victories in the remaining six electoral contests, as well as a sharp turning of the tides in superdelegate momentum for Obama, in order to overtake him.

In short, this won't happen. As party leader and former Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern stressed on Thursday in changing his allegiance from Clinton to Obama, it has come time for Democrats to come together behind their likely nominee and build a winning strategy for victory in November. That nominee is Barack Obama; Clinton would do well to acknowledge this reality and exit the race soon.

Bloggin' with purpose, bloggin' with steam on a beautiful New Mexican morning

2008-05-10T06:04:00.000-07:00

Good morning, folks. The sun is shining, the birds are chirping, and I know that summer is fast on its way in this Northwestern New Mexico town. Such a pristine surrounding inspires some to go for long walks with a loved one, lay beneath a shady tree with a favorite book, or hike one of New Mexico's myriad majestic trails. However, for this political junkie, this lovely environment inspires nothing short of an intense desire to do some hard-nosed political blogging- here we go!

Dead Even in Superdelegates with Clinton, Obama Sets Sights on General:

Barack Obama, the Democratic front-runner in the race for president, picked up a swath of new superdelegate support Friday, adding 10-term New Jersey Congressman Donald Payne to his list of endorsers, as well as John Gage, who heads the American Federation of Government Employees, which also lent its formal organizational backing to the Illinois Senator.

Closer to home, Obama picked up the backing of New Mexico superdelegate Laurie Weakhee. In announcing her decision, Weakhee said that it was time for Democrats to stop bickering over their choice for the nomination and come together to defeat the GOP in November. The superdelegate's support for Obama continues his recent surge of momentum in the Land of Enchantment, a state that he lossed narrowly to Hillary Clinton on Super Tuesday.

Last weekend, New Mexico Democratic Party Chairman Brian Colon announced his support for the Illinois Senator, and the state's soon to be senior Senator, Jeff Bingaman, endorsed Obama on 28 April. Breaking long-standing ties with the Clintons, Governor 'Big' Bill Richardson also offered Obama his support last month, and Congressman and senatorial candidate Tom Udall is rumored to be a friend of the campaign, as well. The Democratic front-runner's recent surge of support in New Mexico may quiet criticism coming from those skeptical of Obama's ability to compete and win in New Mexico in a potential general election match-up with Republican John McCain, who is from neighboring Arizona.

With Clinton's lead amongst superdelegates now virtually nil (at the last count, she held a razor tight 272-270 edge) and the sun setting on her slim hopes of garnering the Democratic nomination, Obama has begun to tailor his message toward the coming battle with McCain.

Obama Talks Economics in Oregon, Criticizes McCain:

Speaking to a crowd of supporters in Beaverton, Oregon, Obama seized on the opportunity to utilize momentum stemming from his positive showings in last Tuesday's contests in which he scored a convincing victory in North Carolina and fought Hillary Clinton to a near draw in Indiana. Setting his sights towards the looming general election battle with presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, Obama gave a speech geared towards displaying his financial prowess and showing voters he is the best-suited candidate to ease the U.S.' economic woes.

Obama came out with a full head of steam, arguing that a McCain presidency would offer Americans little more than a continuation of the Bush Administration's failed economic doctrine, which has presided over record budget deficits, decreased funding for education and children's health insurance programs, and an inflation rate that, despite the official numbers coming from Pennsylvania Avenue, is reckoned by many economists to have surged to around 10% in light of soaring fuel and food prices (see a review of economist Kevin Phillips' new book, 'Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism' for more- http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/6/bad_money_reckless_finance_failed_politics).

Obama criticized McCain as offering little in the way of solutions to the country's current housing crisis and credit crunch, which has rendered hundreds of thousands of U.S. families unable to pay their mortgages and produced home foreclosures at an unprecedented clip. Further, Obama hit McCain on his inability to provide thoughtful solutions to the plight of middle-class families, the budgets of whom have been pinched due to the climbing costs of household staples and petrol.

The Illinois Senator has said that the Federal government must do more to assuage the economic concerns of average Americans, particularly in the way of lowering taxes on low- and middle-income earners, more efficient defense spending, and an energy plan that would reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil. Obama has also detailed plans that would expand scholarship opportunities for high school graduates (in turn, helping their families afford the climbing costs of college) and make it easier for college graduates to repay student loans.

Senator Obama's forward-looking plans to right the wrong state of affairs currently characterizing our country's economy offer his campaign life and dynamism as he closes his campaign for the Democratic nomination and sets his sights on the general election.

Stop By Again:

The glowing New Mexico sun has climbed high in the mid-morning sky, and it's now time for this young blogger to move into another day, alive with opportunity and excitement. Wherever you find yourself, thanks for making my blog a part of your daily reading, and I hope you'll stop back by soon!

Teague Campaign encouraged by new poll numbers, and Haussamen misses a beat

2008-05-09T20:59:00.000-07:00

Harry Teague's campaign for the Democratic nomination in CD-2 glowed today as it reported recent polling numbers, which had it beating rival Bill McCamley by a margin of 36-14%, with 50% of voters undecided. Teague, a former Lea County Commissioner, has enacted a grassroots campaign committed to connecting with voters on an extremely personal level. In fact, the Teague campaign reports that the candidate himself has chalked up nearly as many miles traveling the district to talk to voters over the past month as McCamley has during the entire year of 2008. This blog anxiously awaits a rebuttal by McCamley backers.

Also, as he was hammering GOP CD-2 candidate and restauranteur Ed Tinsley for going negative in campaign mailers referring to well-funded primary opponents Monty Newman and Aubrey Dunn, Jr., New Mexico political blogger Heath Haussamen, perhaps unknowingly, offered steep criticism of his friend Bill McCamley, who as previously mentioned is also running for the seat in CD-2 on the Democratic side. On a Friday post, Haussamen states:

"There's a fine line between disagreeing on issues and negative attacking. Though the news release about Newman might not have crossed the threshold, the mailer about Dunn certainly did. With all due respect, campaign contributions and party affiliation aren't policy issues. Neither is whether someone sided with liberal Democrats. Talking about why Dunn's stance on the Patriot Act is wrong would be an issue-based discussion."

Interestingly, Haussamen failed to mention the recent smattering of personal, non-issue-based attacks recently leveled by McCamley against Teague, in which he's accused his opponent of being an elitist, out-of-touch oil executive. Nevermind the fact that even a cursory examination of Teague's policy stances reveal that his positions are as, if not more, progressive than those of McCamley- Haussamen's ripping comments about Tinsley's negative tactics also ignore the fact they could just as accurately been made toward his friend and candidate of choice in the CD-2 Democratic race.

It is true that Harry Teague made a great deal of money in the oil industry and has used a significant portion of that money to finance his own campaign. However, this reality has little to do with the issues and stance Harry Teague has chosen to promote in his campaign for Congress. Indeed, when Haussamen talks about the need for candidates to stick to the issues in their back-and-forth, his commentary is spot-on. However, he can't have it both ways, at once insisting that candidates keep it clean and remain silent on the barrage of body blows his friend Bill McCamley has levied toward Harry Teague.

Heath, you're a talented, well-intentioned progressive. But let's keep our commentary on CD-2 balanced and honest.

As Israel turns 60, Olmert's words on peace raise questions of sincerity

2008-05-08T18:09:00.000-07:00

On a day when Israeli Prime Minister would have liked to focus solely on the 60th birthday of the State of Israel, his political future came increasingly under fire, as the leader found himself at the center of a corruption probe. Olmert is accused of accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal campaign funds from a U.S. businessman while still mayor of Jerusalem as he prepared to stand for the position of prime minister.

Olmert's response to the latest round of allegations was decisive, with the already embattled PM saying that, if Israeli Attorney General Menachem Mazuz indicts him, he would resign. Such a clear-cut retort came as a surprise to many people and was perhaps an attempt by Olmert to show complete assuredness of innocence.

Some are less than convinced. This is not exactly Olmert's first go-round with accusations of impropriety. In late 2007, the Prime Minister was enmeshed in a scandal involving the privatization and remains a suspect in at least two other cases of illegal activity. Already facing serious political opposition within his own party and an abysmal public approval rating, a new criminal charge was the last thing Olmert needed. The open door of his political career seems to close by the moment.

Regardless of the outcome of his most recent controversy, Olmert seems ill-suited to successfully lead his country toward a more prosperous, peaceful future. At 60, Israel has become an economic power beyond even the wildest dreams of its founders, but it faces tremendous political and security opposition. Clear, then, were Olmert's motives in stating that 'It is peace, not war, that we aspire to and crave.'

Less clear, however, was the prime minister's sincerity. This is a man who has repeatedly vowed to reduce the number of checkpoints that slow the mobility and douse the economic prospects of Palestinians living in the West Bank and halt the expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestinian-controlled areas, only to have the facts on the ground clearly and undoubtedly rebuke his pledges. In short, Palestinians and millions of objective onlookers throughout the world interpret Olmert's words with a great deal of skepticism.

So regression-oriented is Olmert that he would not offer the security detail customarily extended to foreign heads of state when former U.S. President Jimmy Carter recently stopped in Israel during a trip to the Middle East for talks with Hamas and a series of other stakeholders in regional peace. Naturally, Carter's decision to meet with Hamas raised eyebrows of Israeli and U.S. policymakers alike, but his interest solely lied in enhancing the currently stagnated state of diplomacy between Israel and its neighbors. As such, it seems strange at best and blatantly disrespectful at worse, that Olmert would not provide security for the Nobel Peace Laureate.

Israel has been a state for sixty years. It will be a state for sixty more. For the peace and prosperity of Israelis and their neighbors, Ehud Olmert is not the right leader. His run-ins with the law and absolute inability, or unwillingness, to follow through on his word, engender mistrust within even the most pro-Israeli leaders abroad, not to mention a majority of citizens at home. Even prior to a potential indictment from the Israeli AG, Olmert would do right by his country mates to step down. To constituents, this would represent the best gift their PM could potentially give on this, their 60th birthday.

Obama picks up superdelegates, preps for general, while Clinton vows to press on

2008-05-07T20:24:00.000-07:00

In the aftermath of his blowout victory in North Carolina and closer-than-expected defeat in Indiana, Senator Barack Obama was hailed by the political pundancy as heir apparent to the Democratic nomination.

Despite dropping the Hoosier State, the Illinois Senator kept political junkies (this blogger included) up well past their bedtime, waiting to see if results from Obama-friendly Lake County could produce an unlikely victory over Hillary Clinton, hours after many networks had called Indiana for the Senator from New York.

Perhaps it was the fact that morning was fast approaching or a lack of fresh coffee brewing, but usually tight-lipped political analysts were letting it rip in Wednesday's wee morning hours. Tim Russert, host of NBC's Meet the Press and seen by many as one of the most hard-hitting, objective procurers of information in electoral politics today proclaimed around midnight that “We now know who the Democratic nominee’s going to be, and no one’s going to dispute it".

Obviously, Russert's comments, and those like them from other political journalists across the country, did draw objections from solid Clinton backers, whom, either due to an unwillingness to accept an ever-clearer fate or sheer delusion, refuse to accept that Obama has the race sewn up.

The momentum continued throughout the day for Obama, as he picked up the backing of four new superdelegates, as well as former Democratic presidential candidate, George McGovern of South Dakota. McGovern's pledged support for Obama is key in two regards. First, he had previously been an ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton, and his change of heart could symbolize a tide of similar things to come amongst party leaders across the country. Secondly, McGovern's home state of South Dakota takes to the polls on 03 June, the final day of the Democratic primary season, and his backing, coupled with that of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, could help Obama to a heart victory in the large, rural state.

Hillary Clinton, though less than convincing in her Indiana victory speech last night, made every effort to convince skeptics that she was very much continuing her bid for the Democratic nomination. Despite early reports of a cancellation of all scheduled appearance, Clinton's camp dashed these claims, and she was back at the stump in Shepherdstown, West Virginia at 9:00 Eastern Wednesday morning, clamoring for votes in the next Democratic contest.

It also become known Wednesday that Clinton recently injected over $6 million in personal funds into her cash-strapped campaign, which follows a similar move just after Super Tuesday. Some analysts had already expressed doubt as to Clinton's ability to compete in the remaining contests due to financial constraints. Wednesday's development that she had made such a substantial personal contribution only fuels the fire.

Coming to you from Gallup, New Mexico, this is the New Mexico Progressive. Be sure to leave your comments, and respond to our poll regarding the Democratic race. Stop back in soon!

Lake County to decide things in Indiana

2008-05-06T19:44:00.000-07:00

With most 85% of precincts reporting in Indiana, Hillary Clinton holds a narrowing 4% lead over Barack Obama. Final results, however, will not be known until around 12:00 Eastern, when Lake County, an Obama stronghold on the Illinois border featuring the heavily African American city of Gary, reports. The city is still counting several thousand absentee ballots and has withheld all results until these are totaled.

Not only is Lake County the Hoosier State's second largest, it is also in the greater Chicago area, and its residents are largely familiar with, and supportive of, the Illinois Senator.
While it would be very difficult for Obama to earn a large enough margin of victory in Lake County to edge Clinton, it is not mathematically impossible. The story line from election night, however, remains Clinton's narrower than expected Indiana victory, Obama's larger than projected triumph in North Carolina, and the rousing speech Senator Obama delivered to ecstatic North Carolina supporters, which sounds more like a war cry for November than a call for success in the few remaining weeks of the Democratic nomination battle.

This blogger is headed to bed soon but will report back tomorrow with complete Indiana results. Stop back by!

Update: Indiana Narrowing in Obama's Favor

2008-05-06T19:05:00.000-07:00

With 79% of precincts reporting, Illinois Senator Barack Obama has narrowed Senator Hillary Clinton's Indiana lead to 52-48, with several areas that should favor him yet to check in with results.

Obama's margin in North Carolina has closed somewhat, yet he still leads by 14% with 69% reporting. Stay tuned for breaking updates.

Obama scores big victory in North Carolina, nips at Clinton's heels in Indiana

2008-05-06T18:19:00.000-07:00

Obama Makes Strides on Election Night:

With an unexpectedly large margin of victory, Senator Barack Obama scored an impressive victory in North Carolina's Democratic Primary, today. In Indiana, which also held its contest, Hillary Clinton looks headed to an expected victory, though with a margin that some supporters will find concerning.

With 69% of precincts reporting, Clinton held a slender 6% edge over Obama, with many parts of Indianapolis, a stronghold for the Illinois Senator, yet to report. While a closer than expected finish in Indiana is unlikely to drive Clinton from the race, it will cast further doubt on her already unlikely chances of edging Senator Obama in the contest for the Democratic nomination.

Speaking to an enthusiastic crowd of supporters in North Carolina, Obama tailored his comments to the emotions of worried voters, who've seen their financial situations come under increasing strain in the midst of rising oil and food prices. His message was one of unity and hope, a reversion to the initial passionate appeal that won over the optimistic side of voters in the Senator's initial triumph in Iowa, more than four months ago.

He spoke of transcending bitterness and deception and achieving a politics of aggressive and unabashed truth-telling. Only this way, he said, can the type of progressive change so badly needed to change the political environment of nay-saying and no-can-do, be achieved. He told listeners of his biography and how, despite his flaws, he could not have become the person he is today without totally capitalizing on the American Dream that the blue-collar workers, whose votes have so far largely eluded him, hold so dear.

Tonight may have not been the night when Obama secured the Democratic nod with a Clinton withdrawal, but his speech sounded more a general election tone, and those across the country who saw the ferocity in Obama's eyes and heard the passion in his tone saw a candidate ready to take on John McCain come November and assume the Oval Office come 20 January.

As oil prices hit record highs, Teague offers experience, sensible solutions, plus; Clinton saber-rattling on Iran a throw-back to Bush Era diplomacy

2008-05-05T18:06:00.000-07:00

Record oil prices usher in new calls for strong leadership:

Oil prices hit a record high early Monday, with a barrel of U.S. light sweet crude reaching $120 per barrel for the first time, before falling slightly to close at $119.97, also a record. With middle- and low-income U.S. consumers hurting at the pump, new calls have emerged from voters for leaders who understand the very real and constraining effects that rising petrol prices have on family budgets.

Fortunately, in Harry Teague, voters in New Mexico's Second Congressional District have the opportunity to elect a leader with both solid experience in, and ties to, the oil industry and an understanding that the U.S. must take bold, immediate steps to reduce its dependency on oil and lower gasoline prices. Some of Teague's critics, most notably his opponent in the upcoming Democratic Primary, Bill McCamley, seek to utilize the former Lea County Commissioner's ties to the oil and gas industry, loathed by many of the Democratic voters who will decide the party's nominee on 03 June.

However, those interested in true progress on the issue of energy independence (such as your humble blogger) understand that reducing fuel prices will require lawmakers to establish a serious, forward-looking dialogue with oil executives. Teague, who already has strong inroads in this industry, would serve as an effective conduit between concerned citizens and power players in the oil industry.

As a representative from New Mexico, Teague would have a strong interest in encouraging oil executives to invest more in renewable energy resources such as solar and wind, which stands to produce an economic windfall for, and create hundreds if not thousands of well-paying jobs in, New Mexico. Moreover, Teague's business prowess as a self-made millionaire would help him approach financially-motivated oil men with a proposal that is realistic and focused on the economic bottom line.

Those who think that solutions to our country's current gas price conundrum and rapidly climbing oil prices can be crafted without input from leaders of the oil industry kid themselves. What we need are strong, progressive voices in Washington, who understand that creating a more sustainable, cost-friendly energy future in the United States requires open dialogue between oil producers and voters. Fortunately for voters in New Mexico's Second District, Harry Teagues represents such an option.

Clinton Rattles the Saber on Iran:

In recent comments, Democratic presidential contender and New York Senator Hillary Clinton that, if she were president, an Iranian attack on Israel would trigger a U.S. response that would 'obliterate' Iran. This alarming statement conjures up mental images of President Bush's 2002 State of the Union Address, in which he labeled Iran as part of the so-called 'Axis of Evil' with whom Washington would engage in no diplomatic talks and to whom it would offer only stiff and, if needed, aggressive resistance.

This short-sighted policy has engendered the rapid decline of U.S. standing in the eyes of the world. What used to be a country considered a benevolent power and honest broker in the cause for international peace has come to be seen more as a hegemon bent on downgrading the power of others in the interest of guaranteeing its own security and predominance. Moreover, the Bush Administration's almost absolute lack of willingness to hold diplomatic talks with adversarial players has stoked the wrath of millions across the Middle East and the broader Muslim World.

With this in mind, Clinton's comment that she would, as president, seek to obliterate Iran if it levied a military attack on Israel frustrates those interested in seeing the U.S. recapture a more sunny standing on the international scene. Sure, an attack by Iran on Israel should warrant a serious response, just as any violent attack by one country on another would. However, stating so point blankedly that she would take steps to 'obliterate' a sovereign state and the millions of inhabitants living within it goes too far.

Perhaps Clinton's comments were intended solely for the administration of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, however, when stating something so potentially inflammatory, it seems strange, indeed misguided, that Clinton would have left the interpretation of her comments to chance. What was she thinking, and is this a sign of what voters can expect under a Clinton Administration? That is, more of the same fear-mongering, closed-off diplomatic stance promoted so strongly (and perilously) by George W. Bush? Voters beware...

A true progressive, Obama transcends pandering; plus, Rice foresees progress on Mid-East peace deal

2008-05-04T17:18:00.001-07:00

Speaking on NBC's 'Meet The Press' this morning, Senator Barack Obama argued that, in order to curb rising food costs, the U.S. might need to reassess its ethanol policy. Currently, Congressional mandates, backed by the Bush Administration, require that a certain minimum of ethanol be incorporated into standard gasoline. The purpose is two-fold: on one hand, including ethanol and other renewable resources that are cleaner than pure petrol lessens the environmental damage created by exhaust; on the other, mandating that increasing levels of ethanol must be used in the U.S. fuel supply, the policy seeks to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil sources.

The problem with requiring that ethanol be blended into standard gasoline is that U.S.-produced ethanol utilizes corn as its main energy source. This means that as lawmakers require higher and higher percentages of ethanol to be utilized in gasoline, demand for corn shoots up, with prices following suit. For millions of Americans, corn represents a staple food and is heavily utilized in daily cooking. As a result, higher corn prices seriously pinch the budget of middle-class workers and make it more difficult for them to feed their families and pay for other necessary goods and services.

The problem is more acute abroad, particularly in Mexico and Central America, wherein corn plays an even more important role in families' nutritional survival. As prices for the staple good began to climb last year, it was reported than families in Southern Mexican communities (the birthplace of 'maize', where corn-farming and culture has been intertwined for thousands of years) were paying up to 75% of their daily salaries buying corn to produce tortillas and other key components of their diet. Within these extreme conditions, thousands of impoverished Mexicans were faced with their terrible choice of meeting minimal caloric requirements and paying for other basic goods, such as water. Clearly, the detrimental effects of rising corn prices spread beyond U.S. borders.

While investing more in biofuels, especially corn-based ethanol represents a necessary step in the U.S. quest to become more energy independent and slowing the brutal march of global warming, policies that require a greater percentage of corn-based ethanol to be used in gasoline also epitomizes old-fashioned political economy. With the vast majority of the U.S.' corn production based in states like Iowa, Indiana, and Ohio that are hugely significant in presidential politics, opposing any mandates that hurt the bottom line of farmers in these states becomes politically risky at best, and political suicide for a presidential candidate at worst.

Bold, then, was Obama's proclamation that the U.S. should rethink its policy towards mandating ethanol minimums in the fuel supply. The move, however, is largely indicative of the Senator's willingness to buck political expedience and stand up for policies that are in the long-term interest of the United States. This is the same leader who stood before an audience at the National Education Association and supported the virtues of merit pay for teachers; who told United Autoworker Workers union members in Detroit that the country needs to prepare for further downsizing in its automotive industry and make responsible strides toward increased fuel-efficiency standards; and who has told millions of voters that he would happily work with any lawmaker, regardless of party affiliation, who is truly interested in promoting the common good. Indeed, Obama's remarks on ethanol policy reform should hardly come as a surprise.

McCain Right on Tariffs, Wrong on Biofuel Minimums:

Across the aisle, Senator John McCain has wisely called for a reduction in U.S. ethanol tariffs, which prevent cheaper, more energy-efficient Brazilian sugar-based ethanol from entering the U.S. and competing with Midwest farmers' corn-based product. However, the Senator has balked on the issue of biofuel production and is an outspoken proponent of standards that call for a certain percentage of ethanol to be used in gasoline, despite their serious and detrimental financial effects on middle- and low-income U.S. consumers, as well as their less prosperous counterparts abroad.

Clinton's Unappealing Middle Game:

Meanwhile, Obama's rival in the Democratic nomination contest, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, has played a disappointing middle game, saying that corn-based ethanol mandates need to be reassessed and that the U.S. should focus on utilizing other parts of corn crops, such as the cob and stalk. While on the surface this would seem like a creative way to both please corn farmers and retain environmentally-helpful results of increased ethanol usage in the fuel supply, it represents little more than the Senator's placating farm-state interests.

Rather than sticking with corn-based ethanol, lawmakers should take steps to reduce the tariff on Brazilian, sugar-based ethanol, which is more than three times as energy efficient as its corn-based counterpart and, without tariffs, would be available to U.S. consumers for a fraction of the cost. We've yet to see Clinton come out and take the truly progressive stand of endorsing ethanol tariff reductions.

Obama, on the other hand, has not shirked away from taking a bold stand on ethanol policy reform, despite the serious political consequences that this stance might bring come November, or, more immediately, in Indiana's Democratic Primary this Tuesday. True progress requires true leadership, and Senator Obama does not shy away from presenting himself as such.

What about the real issues, folks?

2008-05-04T06:56:00.000-07:00

In the run-up to the upcoming Democratic contests in Indiana and North Carolina, which, between them, will decide as many delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Denver as did the Pennsylvania Primary two weeks ago, many political pundits have focused their coverage on the connection between Senator Barack Obama and his former, fiery pastor, Dr. Jeremiah Wright. What has been lost in this obsessive coverage, however, is the significant strain on the minds of U.S. voters as they make their ways to the polls this spring.

With gas prices hovering around $3.70 and thousands of homes being foreclosed upon, it would seem as though the press could figure out that their are more important things going on amongst the public than inflammatory rhetoric from a man from whom Senator Obama has, in large part, separated himself. Add to this the reality that nearly 50 million Americans live without access to quality health care, we remain enmeshed in a disastrous quagmire in Iraq (one that has claimed the lives of more than 4,000 of our bravest daughters and sons), progress on our country's immigration issue has stagnated amidst bickering between lawmakers and the Bush Administration, and the that that our Federal educational framework, No Child Left Behind, has failed to provide millions of youngsters in low-income schools with sufficient opportunities and resources to achieve academically.

Given these very real and serious issues facing average citizens as they work to make their decision in the Democratic contest between Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton, shouldn't the media ask questions of these candidates that are more in line with, and relevant to, the needs of voters?

Not only is this coverage of the primary contest irresponsible and a dereliction of the media's duty to provide the electorate with news most relevant to its needs, it actually hurts the public interest by detracting candidates' time from crafting sound solutions to the country's greatest problems. Sure, Senator Obama would love to spend more time forming and promoting an energy policy, for instance, that would reduce our country's reliance on foreign oil and non-renewable energy sources. But how can he do so when the majority of the press' coverage of his campaign focuses on what his former pastor may or may not have said and how this relates to the Senator's character? Instead of talking about voters' real problems and how he'd go about solving them from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Senator Obama must constantly mention his disapproval of Wright's rhetoric and has even had to make two front-page speeches on the issue.

Talking about a candidate's character is, and should be, a critical element in any voters decision of whether or not to support them, and the press has a duty to discuss this issue, as such. However, if we want to know the true character of Barack Obama, shouldn't we look more as his experience as a community organizer in one of the most poorest and afflicted areas of our country? Or how about his track record as a dedicated and loving father or husband, or more than ten years of passionate service as an elected official in the Illinois State Senate and, now, U.S. Senate? These factors, which speak volumes more about Obama's character than his now defunct ties to Wright, have been largely and irresponsibly overlooked by the media and have detracted from the Senator's ability to talk about the issues really on voters' mind.

As the candidates make their final pushes in Indiana and North Carolina, let us hope that voters can get a clear enough picture of what each leader actually offers in terms of policy solutions to our countr's most pressing challenges to make an informed and responsible decision.

The Mileage Race: McCamley v. Teague

2008-05-03T21:47:00.000-07:00

In the heated race for the Democratic nomination in New Mexico's 2nd Congressional District, upstart Bill McCamley, a Dona Ana County Commissioner, has tagged himself as the 'roll-up-my-sleeves candidate', who is on the ground talking directly to voters about their most pressing concerns. McCamley has wasted no opportunities trying to paint his opponent, former Lea County Commisioner Harry Teague, as an out-of-touch oil executive, with little conception of the plight of the common man.

Putting aside the fact that Teague didn't have electricity in his home until moving to Hobbs at age 9 and dropping out of high school to work for less than $2/hour to provide his ailing father with health care, let's take a look at a different, yet perhaps equally accurate, gauge of the elder candidate's grassroots prowess: the old odometer.

During the last few months, McCamley and Teague have cocooned the state in mileage, visiting locations in all corners of the Second District. Recently, McCamley held a fundraiser at which he announced he'd contributed $47.50 to his own campaign to fill the gas tank of his pick-up truck, an obvious mock of Teague's personal contribution of $475,000 to his well-financed campaign just the day before. However, what the younger candidate didn't mention was that the race for miles is much closer than he would have voters believe.

In fact, sources close to this blog with ties to the Teague campaign report that, over the last month, the former Lea County Commissioner has put more miles on his pick-up in an effort to speak directly with voters than his Dona Ana counterpart has over the entire campaign. Now, if that doesn't speak to, and largely invalidate, McCamley's purported hold on the claim to be the working man's candidate of choice, than I don't know what does.

Stay tuned for exact mileage numbers in the days to come, and, as always, thanks for stopping by the New Mexico Progressive, your one-stop shop for progressive political analysis in the Land of Enchantment.

Teague Stays on Message as McCamley Levies New Attacks; and Obama Attempts to Put Wright Issue to Bed

2008-04-29T19:29:00.000-07:00

Teague Stays on Message in Light of Harsh Criticism by Opponent:

With his recent $475,000 personal contribution to his Congressional campaign, Second District Democrat Harry Teague is looking to put the nail in the coffin on what has been a hard-fought race against the young and charismatic Dona Ana County Commissioner Bill McCamley. McCamley responsed today by holding a press conference to announce that he'd made a campaign contribution of his own, loaning himself $47.50 to fill his gas tank. Your humble blogger is many things, but a mathematician is not one of them. Still, I can safely say that Teague's donation outpaces McCamley's 10,000-fold. Point made.

However, while McCamley was quick to use the size and timing of Teague's hefty personal cash injection to make the point that the former Lea County Commissioner's campaign is both elitist and struggling to keep pace with his own more modestly funded effort, Teague continued doing what he's done this entire campaign--talk to voters about making progress on the issues they care about most.

In something of a concerning move, McCamley called a press conference to announce the $47.50 contribution and also take swipes at Teague's ties to, and funding from, oil executive. Lambasting Teague's money sources, McCamley said 'I don’t have that kind of money,” adding that 'every time you see a Harry Teague commercial, know that you are paying for it every time you buy $4-per-gallon gas'. Closer analysis, however, reveals that there's more to the story than McCamley's criticism would suggest.

While it is true that Teague is a millionaire, who has made much of his wealth in the oil industry, with which he remains close ties, he has also used his money to provide education and health care for his employees and their families. He said as much, claiming 'I provide health care for all of my employees and their families. I offer scholarships to help young people go to college, and I support dozens of causes. I helped create thousands of good-paying jobs as a county commissioner.' Clearly, Teague's comments are in-line with the developing 'real results' theme of his campaign. Whereas McCamley seems content to focus his energies on discussing everything Teague is not, the candidate from Lea County candidate seems focused on talking about what Democratic representation for the 2nd District should and could be.

A source from the Teague Campaign checks in with additional information regarding the long, hard, and undeniably compelling path the Hobbs candidate has taken to success. The fact that he does not revert to this story every time an insult is levied from the McCamley campaign indicates Teague's strong desire to stay focused on the issues that matter most to voters.

If he wanted to, Teague could remind voters that:

the first time he had running water in his house was when he moved to hobbs when he was 9
he dropped out of school during high school to work for less than $2/hour when his father, who could not afford health care, fell ill
he has spent the majority of his career toiling in blue-collar type labor with which McCamley, despite his respectable non-profit work and time on the Dona Ana County Commission, has little personal experience

In sum, Harry Teague made himself. He scrapped for everything he has earned. However, instead of harping on the difficult of his rise, Teague has kept his nose down during this campaign, driving around the 2nd District to discuss what they want most in an elected official in Washington.

McCamley has provided this race with important energy and passion. Now, wouldn't it be nice if he took the same intensity to making good on his claim to want to run an issue-based campaign?

Obama Cuts Ties to Wright:

Senator Barack Obama, in an attempt to put further distance between his campaign and his fiery former Pastor Jeremiah Wright, called the pastor's comments given at a recent speech at the National Press Club, 'appalling'. Wright has been criticized for arguing that the United States deserved some of the blame for bringing on the brutal attacks of September 11th, 2001, and that the Federal government had done a good deal to bring on the AIDS crisis disproportionately afflicting black communities across the country.

Obama has had an intimate relationship with Wright for many years. Not only did he attend Wright's megachurch in Chicago, but both of his daughters were baptised by the religious leader. The Obama Campaign, which derives much of its momentum from a message of unity and stated desire to bring divided factions of the country together, has been undercut by the inflammatory tone of Wright's comments. It was this reality that inspired the Illinois to make a highly-touted speech on the role of race in U.S. politics last month, in which he refused to cut all ties between himself and Wright, but also argued that the pastor failed to acknowledge the significant progress the U.S. has made on the issue of race relations over the years.

Obama's comments Tuesday were more pointed. He claimed that 'moving forward, Rev. Wright does not speak for me, he does not speak for our campaign', noting also that Wright's rhetoric 'contradicts everything that I'm about and who I am.'

For his part, Wright characterized Obama's denouncement as disingenuous. He claimed that Obama waspandering to white, working-class voters, and questioned the integrity of his motives in distancing himself from his former pastor. 'If Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected," Wright offered. Others questioned the timing of Obama's attempt to put space between himself and Wright, claiming that the pastor had not changed his tune in any notable way in recent weeks from what it had been throughout the time he'd known Obama.

Still, looking to close the case and sever ties with Wright's fiery ideas, Obama claimed of the pastor that 'The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate." It remains to be seen whether or not Obama's words carry weight amongst the white, blue-collar workers whose votes Obama needs to court to win his party nomination and again against John McCain in November.

Bingaman Endorses Obama

2008-04-28T18:31:00.001-07:00

Bingaman Backs Obama:

Today, New Mexico's Democratic Senator Jeff Bingaman threw his support behind Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama (see Bingaman's statement- http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGCpYk). With Obama locked in a neck-and-neck race for superdelegates with New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Bingaman's support could not have come at a better time for the first-termer from Illinois, whose campaign has come under fire in recent weeks after a sizable defeat in the Pennsylvania Primary and a continued focus on his ties to controversial Pastor Jeremiah Wright.

Bingaman is seen by many as a quiet leader of the Democratic Party, whose thoughtful approach to shaping policy and willingness to work with lawmakers on the other side of the aisle embodies the devotion to progress on which Obama has based his campaign. Moreover, the New Mexico leader, who has served in the Senate for more than 25 years and won his previous election by a larger margin than any other Senatorial candidate in the '06 election, shows other long-time Democratic Senators with strong ties to the Clintons that bucking their party's first couple in order to back a candidate by whom they feel more compelled is an acceptable, indeed responsible, move.

Obama and New Mexico: A Winning Pair

Bingaman's support of Obama is also meaningful for New Mexicans. While nearly identical in terms of policy, Senator Obama possesses a superior ability than his rival from New York to bring lawmakers of different minds together to create forward-looking legislation that positively impacts people's lives. This statesmanship could play a major role in advancing the currently stagnated Congressional debate on immigration, an issue of particular significance to those in the Land of Enchantment.

Obama believes, as do many across our state, that the vast majority of immigrants who decide to make their home in the U.S. contribute meaningfully to our country's economic and cultural fabric. As key players in our diverse society, peaceful and productive immigrants deserve a path to citizenship without first having to return to their country of origin. Requiring them to do so, of course, would encourage many undocumented workers to remain in the shadows, continuing their inability to both pay taxes and receive critical services, which benefits nobody.

As the son of a Kenyan father, who himself traveled to the United States as an immigrant to take advantage of an academic scholarship, Obama understands the importance of creating safe and reasonable legal avenues for foreign nationals to enter and live in the U.S. However, what sets him apart from his New York rival is a personability and devotion to identifying commonalities in his and others' approaches to issues that would create the necessary consensus to advance effective and comprehensive immigration legislation.

Obama's ability to bring people together would also benefit New Mexico's children. Today, thousands of our youngsters live without access to quality health care. Not only has Obama voted repeatedly in favor of S-CHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program), but his healthcare platform also mandates that all children across the country be insured. Clinton supporters would country that her plan features a mandate to insure all people, but only Obama has refused the conmtributions of powerful pharmaceutical companies, who make passing legislation like S-CHIP so difficult in the first place. How can we expect Clinton to win the delicate consensus necessary to pass much-needed universal healthcare legislation for our children, when her first attempt at doing so during her husband's administration was a disaster and she continues to welcome substantial contributions from pharmaceutical companies?

While Senator Clinton is seen by political pundits as perhaps the most polarizing figure in the Democratic Party, whose candidacy would be a boon for a GOP party struggling to find its voice, Senator Obama has proven throughout the primary season that he can attract the votes of Democrats as well as Republicans. In Iowa, where Republicans can switch their vote to participate in the Democratic Caucus and switch back immediately after, Obama captured the votes of thousands of GOP party members frustrated with business as usual in Washington. Indeed, across the country, Obama has proven time and again that his message of hope and change appeals to voters of all backgrounds, which bodes well for not only his prospects in November, but also his ability to forge consensus and pass meaningful legislation once coming to 1600 Pennsylvania. In his timeless wisdom, which has helped Senator Bingaman become one of the most popular and effective lawmakers in New Mexico's history, our state's soon-to-be senior Senator decided to cast his vote as a superdelegate for Senator Barack Obama. In less than nine months, these honorable leaders will have an opportunity to take their professional relationship to the next level in a way that will improve the lives of good folks across New Mexico.

Building Consensus: Obama's Proven Track Record

Richardson on the Diplomatic Charge in Venezuela

2008-04-27T19:39:00.000-07:00

Governor Bill Richardson traveled to Caracas to hold talks with Venezuelan President, and Bush Administration boogeyman, Hugo Chavez this weekend. Big Bill was in the Andean country to discuss Chavez's role in freeing several hostages still held by the FARC, a Colombian revolutionary group that controls significant swaths of land in Southern Colombia. While Chavez successfully intervened to secure the freeing of six Colombian hostages earlier this year, FARC continues to hold dozens of individuals in captivity, including three U.S. citizens and former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt, who also holds duel French citizenship.

Richardson focused his visit on encouraging Chavez to more forcefully engage in freeing the U.S. contractors, who have been held by the FARC in the Colombian jungle for more than five years. Interestingly, the New Mexico governor said his trip had been endorsed by the Bush Administration, with whom Chavez has had frosty relations. Richardson has a successful track record of working with adversarial leaders to secure the freedom of U.S. citizens or advance otherwise stagnated diplomatic ties in places like Iraq, North Korea, and Sudan.

Progressive Diplomacy Rewarded:

Richardson's active and innovative approach to diplomacy offers further vindication of the notion that honest and open dialogue more often than not engenders positive results. This blog discussed in a recent post the effectiveness of Jimmy Carter's talks with leaders from Hamas, in which the former president achieved more in one sitting than the current Administration has in over seven years of being in office. It should be, and has been, noted that this brand of diplomatic leaders such as these earn for themselves harsh and often biting criticism. With Carter's call for a more even-handed approach to U.S. policy vis-a-vis Israel and the Palestinians came charges of anti-semitism. When Senator Barack Obama claimed that, as president, he would hold unconditional talks with adversarial leaders in Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and other places to which Bush and other leaders have turned the cold shoulder, he was lampooned with charges of severe inexperience and naivete in regards to foreign affairs.

But what do we see in terms of results when we analyze the track record of those who have opened their eyes to the possibility of increased communications with hostile leaders abroad? Carter was a trailblazer in securing recognition of Israel's right to exist when, in 1978, he successfully brokered the Camp David Accords and a formal peace deal between Israel and Egypt. While each country still struggles with serious and confounding problems, the pact undoubtedly made them more secure and prosperous than they otherwise would have been (Israel and Egypt have been numbers one and two, respectively, on the list of the top recipients of U.S. foreign aid since 1979).

Democrats are not alone in this thoughtful approach to foreign policy. President Richard Nixon decided to go on a charm offensive (to the extent that that was possible for 'Tricky Dick', not exactly a maestro in the area of charisma) in, and open the door to relations with, China, which has made possible our still developing, yet improving political and economic relationship with that country (without which we'd have virtually no leverage in pressing for improved human rights for the Chinese people, or increased autonomy for Tibet).

More recently, Richardson's actions and Obama's pledges show us that the light of open dialogue and honest statesmanship has not been dimmed into non-existence. If more lawmakers follow suit and see that good things happen when our leaders lay their intentions on the table and ask for honest partners in creating a better world, the U.S. stands a real chance of regaining its respected position in the eyes of the international community. If not, we will reside ourselves to increased isolation, which bodes well for neither our political or economic might. Anyone who has traveled abroad knows that most foreign nationals are in no way inherently averse to the American people, but rather take issue with the way in which far too many its administrations have cockily waved the baton of U.S. power and coercively called upon other countries to acquiesce to its will. Sadly, no one truly wins in this scenario. But it needn't be so. Hopefully, openness and innovation characterize U.S. diplomacy in the political generation to come.

Fact and Fiction Regarding Carter's Recent Trip to the Middle East

2008-04-27T10:11:00.000-07:00

In a recent piece entitled 'Carter's Heir: He's a Senator from Illinois', Matthew Continetti of The Weekly Standard lambasted former President Jimmy Carter's recent trip to the Middle East to hold talks with leaders of the Palestinian militant group Hamas. The article also argued that Democratic Presidential front-runner Barack Obama has maintained a contradictory diplomatic posture, saying that would not hold talks with Hamas but would sit down unconditionally with adversarial leaders in Iran, whom, Continetti argues, hold the same terroristic predisposition vis-a-vis Israel. Additionally, the author labels Hamas as an unacceptable partner in dialogue due to its refusal to accept Israel's right to exist or abide by the Oslo Accords.

What the article fails to mention, however, is that Israel, for its part, has walked a good rhetorical line on Oslo while failing completely to comply by its guidelines on the ground. Indeed, settlement activity in the West Bank, which the Oslo accord was supposed to halt completely, continues at breakneck speed, with the Israeli Knesset approving the building of over 600 new homes just outside of Jerusalem in early April just days after Condoleeza received assurances from Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that such activity would stop. Additionally, the expansion of Israel's security wall continues, reaching further and further into Palestinian Authority-controlled territory in the West Bank. Never mind that this process stands in direct conflict with United Nations Security Resolution 242, which was agreed by the United States and Israel, it also creates serious humanitarian problems for Palestinians in the West Bank, who find themselves cut off from basic resources like food and medicine.

Put that aside. The failure of Palestinians and Israelis alike to abide by the exact mandates of 242 are well-known. What is important is the future and looking to create a meaningful agreement that can alleviate the region's growing disorder. It was curious, then, for Continetti to label Carter's recent visit as 'a bust'. Not only did the former President get Hamas leader, Khaled Meshal, to agree a complete truce and cessation of attacks on Israeli communities if this move were approved in a referendum by the Palestinian electorate, he also engaged a party (Hamas) whose participation will be necessary in the creation of any future Israeli-Palestinian peace accord. For too long, skeptics have kidded themselves in believing that peace can be secured in this troubled region while keeping Hamas isolated. A legitimate political entity or not, Hamas will play a role in the Israeli-Palestinian dichotomy in the years to come.

However, policymakers have some choice as to what this role will be. Responsible leaders, like Carter, understand that tempering Hamas' brutal terrorism is by offering them a real chance to participate in peace talks. If Hamas rejects this well-intentioned offer, they will show themselves to be entirely uncommitted to peace, which would dry up support for them amongst many of its small, but stalwart supporters. Moreover, showing categorically that Hamas has no interest in peace would likely decrease its political support amongst the Palestinian electorate, whom, far more than waging continual and purposeless attacks on Israeli citizens, would support politicians that offer real solutions to their serious economic and political troubles. I witnessed this on a recent trip to the Middle East, during which citizens from across the West Bank in villages in which I stopped expressed a strong desire to have peace with Israel in return for their economic and political vitality, which has dwindled in recent years. It is critical to understand that Hamas is only powerful to the extent that Palestinians are financially and politically desolate. If Israel were truly interested in securing a long-term truce with the Palestinian Authority and winning real safety for at-risk communities like Sderot and others near the Gaza Strip, then its best play is to invest in increasing economic prospects for ordinary Palestinian citizens.

It is easy to portray all Palestinians as eager to carry out the monstrous attacks of suicide bombers and rocket launchers. Getting to the truth of the situation, however, requires thoughtful and innovative diplomacy, such as that recently employed by Jimmy Carter in his talks with Hamas. Palestinians want peace and security as much as their Israeli counterparts. Commentators like The Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti, who has probably never traveled to the West Bank to experience the troubling daily conditions in which most Palestinians live, fail to understand this and content themselves in making convenient and, ultimately, unhelpful observations from the sidelines. Israelis and Palestinians deserve much better.

The Need for Educational Reform: A Teacher's Take

2008-04-26T03:46:00.000-07:00

(Links to education platforms on New Mexico's Federal candidates in the '08 elections can be found at the bottom of this page- links to the candidates' websites can be found on the blog's main page)

Eleven months ago I was in college putting the finishing touches on an undergraduate degree in international affairs. Just seven months prior, I'd been moving full speed ahead with my study, which concentrated in international politics and Latin America. I'd taken the GRE examination (graduate school entrance examination) and submitted applications to top-tiered master's programs in my field. My plan was to spend my days working on the Hill as a staffer for a New Mexico lawmaker for whom I'd interned and worked during my time in college and spend my nights in the classroom. Through these positions, I'd take critical steps towards not only advancing my mind and ability to inform public policy in my country, but also play an active role of improving the lives of those in my home state of New Mexico.

In late October, things changed for me. I sat down with a recruiter from the Teach For America program and began to discuss ways in which TFA is taking steps toward bringing excellent leadership and instruction to schools in low-income areas across the country. I'd heard of TFA before but never considered it seriously for myself (as is the case for so many future TFA Corps members). During the interview, the recruiter mentioned three particular aspects of the program that transformed my mindset and, before the interview was out, reset my future plans.

Secondly, she informed that Teach For America operates in New Mexico. Before our talk, I'd not known that, thinking that, primarily, TFA only existed in urban settings. The NM program, she said, was based in Gallup and operating throughout a wide range of Northwestern New Mexican communities, including many on Navajo and Zuni Reservations. This immediately caught my attention, as the chance to contribute to my state in such a direct way was quite attractice. I felt young, energetic, and deeply committed to improving the state of education in the Land of Enchantment. Moreover, the opportunity to learn more about a part of the state about which I'd previously known little excited me quite a bit (I grew up in Las Cruces and spend most of my out-of-the-city time in Albuquerque or points along the I-25 corridor). Coming to know and contribute to my state in a new and powerful way was a second reason why, during this interview, I began to believe this program was for me.

Finally, my recruiter mentioned one of TFA's powerful goals: to have 100 former Corps Members become elected officials by 2010. Growing up, I'd always imagined myself a leader. I cared deeply about the issues facing my community in Las Cruces, had strong opinions on the political situation in the country and world, and, during college, had sought to improve the conditions and opportunities of my fellow students by running for and winning the spot of a student senator, representing over 2,000 of my classmates. Now, as I looked toward my adult future, I knew that one day, I hoped to serve in a leadership position that would allow me to represent the voice of everyday New Mexicans in the making of public policy at the highest levels in this country.

As such, when I heard that TFA had its sights set specifically on encouraging and offering significant logistical and financial resources to Corps Members who hoped to run for and
win office, I became very excited. Imagine a country in which a substantial portion of our Federal lawmakers had spent time in a low-income classroom. Where would our priorities be? Would we continue spending the same amount of money on our national education program (No Child Left Behind- $8 billion annually) in one year as we do for eight days of operation in Iraq? Would we continue to overlook the need of teachers to provide their students with a real and comprehensive education by continually requiring to requiring them to uphold rigid, one-size-fits-all standards that don't speak to the particularities of varying cultural settings across the country? And would we continue to deny millions of children in low-income communities the opportunity to earn a college degree and have a real shot to earn a satisfying, well-paying job that helps create a standard of life that one has reason to value? I think not.

Having concluded that my time to act had come, I floated out of the meeting and promptly began my application to the Teach For American program. For my state, for my country, my mission had changed. I was going to be a teacher and do my part to directly improve the educational opportunities available to the young people in New Mexico who needed it most.

Eleven months on, I can say without hesitation that teaching is at once a challenging and rewarding experience. I am more convinced today than I was last October during my interview that improving the educational conditions in our most at-risk areas represents the most important and effective way to ensure a better future across our land. However, I have also observed the many things that make it difficult for teachers, administrators, and parents to help their students achieve a high level of education. Indeed, my main reflection at this point in my teaching career is the most mind-blowing one: the hideous crime of educational inequity in this country is a multi-faceted problem, and its solution requires a comprehensive approach that involve factors as much outside as they are inside the classroom. A wholistic approach to education is what our current leaders and Federal legislation lack. In my school and community, I've observed parents, teachers, and principals who are bursting at the seems with excitement about helping their children learn but extremely limited in their ability to do so. The problem, then, does not rest with anyone party, and there certainly exists no silver bullet for rescuing the disastrous condition of education in our country. Rather, there exist a slew of issues, which must all be addressed by a Federal plan for education in order to finally unlock the tremendous academic potential we know is inherent within every child.

As New Mexicans, with an educational system that faces particularly severe education challenges, we must keep this in mind as we head to the ballot box to elect our Federal lawmakers this coming November. Specifically, when considering the candidates and their education platform, we should elect leaders who:

support the establishment of a $40,000 minimum annual salary for public school teachers

Recruiting the best, brightest, and most capable of our young people into the profession of teaching requires a salary sufficient to achieve a secure financial situation. We can neither hope nor expect to lure the next generation of leaders away from lucrative careers in law, business, and the sciences if we do not offer a comparable salary, or at least one that allows them to live comfortably.

work to lower drastically reduce classes in public schools

As a teacher in a classroom with 28 students, it is virtually impossible for me to independenrly accommodate all the unique learning styles and performance levels of my youngsters. I do not argue against classroom diversity. Indeed, combining in one classroom students who learn in different ways and are performing at different levels can significantly enhance the learning environment. However, when teachers are stretched too thin in trying to work with an unreasonable number of students, it becomes extremely difficult to provide quality instruction to each person. Creating smaller class sizes would go a long way in allowing teachers to adequately meet the needs of each student.

fully fund pre-K and Head Start programs

Every child, especially those in low-income areas and underperforming school deserves a chance to be performing on or above grade level by the time they enter kindergarten. Unfortunately, right now, pre-K and Head Start programs across New Mexico and our country are vastly underfunded. We need lawmakers who understand that the first three years of a child's life represent a crucial period in the formation of that child's impressions of the world and academic development. As such, struggling school districts require capable early-education leaders to ensure that their young students do not enter kindergarten performing below grade level.

supports eliminating the punitive measures of No Child Left Behind and the creation of a more thorough notion of accountability

People have many takes on the best way in which to reform NCLB, but one thing on which nearly all critics can agree is that the program is drastically underfunded and has not been given a real chance to succeed. With annual funding running at a palty $8 billion/year, it is no wonder that schools, particularly those in low-income areas, have had an impossible time meeting its standards. No good teacher will tell you that accountability is a bad thing. Indeed, all teachers committed to fully educating their students want to know just how far their work is coming. However, tying all forms of progress to results on a standardized state test does a grave disservice to hard-working teachers and the students they mean to educate. We need lawmakers who will rework NCLB (or a new Federal educational initiative) to create a system of accountability that factors in things other than state test scores when deciding on a school's level of progress: These factors might include:

1. results on quarterly and short-cycle assessments
2. student attendance
3. school communication with parents and other community members
4. level at which schools comply with district-level systems, reading and math development programs (Linda Mood Bell, Accelerated Reader), and staff development standards
5. efficiency in utilizing resources (including technology, staff development funding, classroom resources such as textbooks, and library facilities)

These five things represent just a few key components of a more thorough, telling accountability system than the one currently employed by the NCLB framework. We need elected officials who understand this and would work to implement a more fair system of measuring teachers and schools.

As we look ahead to the critical elections of 2008, New Mexicans have a choice of how they want to educate the next generation of our state's leaders. We have a moral imperative to do all we can to ensure that our young people, particularly those in underserved communities, have every opportunity they need to achieve the tremendous academic potential inherent in every child. As a teacher, I believe in my students, and I know they can achieve whatever it is they set out for. However, they need the help of a concerned and committed populous, as well as thoughtful and passionate lawmakers to do so. In November, we have an opportunity to ensure that the latter piece to this puzzle is in place. Vote responsibly, New Mexicans.

Education platforms and, or voting track records of New Mexico's Federal candidates:

U.S. Senate:
Rep. Tom Udall (D)- http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Tom_Udall.htm#Education
Rep. Heather Wilson (R)- http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Heather_Wilson.htm#Education
Rep. Steve Pearce (R)- http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Steve_Pearce.htm#Education

U.S. House-Congressional District 1:

Democrats:
Michelle Lujan Grisham- http://www.michelleforcongress.com/issues/education.html
Martin Heinrich- http://www.martinheinrich.com/issues
Rebecca Vigil-Giron- http://www.rebeccaforcongress.com/inner.asp?z=17
Robert Pidcock- http://www.robertpidcockforcongress.com/issue_education.php

Republicans:
Darren White- http://www.darrenwhiteforcongress.com/index.php?page=issues
Joe Carraro- http://www.peopleforjoe.com/

U.S. House-Congressional District 2:

Democrats:
Harry Teague- http://www.harryteagueforcongress08.com/issues_education.html
Bill McCamley- http://www.billmccamley.com/issues/index.php?id=10

Republicans:
Ed Tinsley- http://www.edtinsleyforcongress.com/on-the-issues/
Aubrey Dunn, Jr.- http://www.aubreydunn.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=44&Itemid=28
Monty Newman- http://montyforcongress.com/issues
Greg Sowards- http://www.shortbaldhonest.com/ (website undergoing 'complete redesign')

U.S. House- Congressional District 3

Democrats:
Ben Ray Lujan- http://www.benrlujan.com/Issues/education.htm
Don Wiviott- http://www.donfornewmexico.com/issues/education
Benny Shendo- http://bennyshendojr.com/bio
Harry Montoya- http://www.montoyaforcongress.com/content.php?contentid=14
Jon Adams- http://www.jonadamsforcongress.com/

Late-night international post and food rationing in the U.S.?

2008-04-24T22:24:00.000-07:00

Hamas Offers Truce:

Coming on the heels of talks with former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, the Palestinian militant group, Hamas, has proposed a truce to Israel to quell violence in the Gaza Strip. Though Israeli officials remain skeptical as to the offers sincerity, it seems misguided for the Jewish state to dismiss the pledge offhand. Terms of the deal, as stated by Hamas, include a lifting of the Israeli blockade between Gaza and Israel proper, as well as a cessation of attacks by Israeli soldiers on Hamas officials and Gazan civilians. In return, Gaza would end all rocket fire on Northern and Western Israel. Some interpret Hamas' proposal as an attempt by the group to remain, or take steps toward becoming, relevant in the peace process. However, recent reports indicate that Israeli and Hamas leaders have been holding negotiations through an Egyptian conduit for some time and that Carter's trip may have tipped the balance in terms of a truce offer.

Walmart Braces for the 'Silent Tsunami':

In a worrying sign of the world food crisis' growing severity, Arkansas-based Walmart, the world's largest retailer, began limiting the sale of rice in selected locations to four bage per customer. New restrictions placed by rice-growing countries in South and Southeast Asia on their exports have sent global rice prices skyrocketing, fueling worries of scarcity amongst supermarkets abroad. Perhaps, from the grave, Milton Friedman is furiously penciling possible responses to the breakdown of his shock economic doctrine that has, in large part, resulted in the 'silent tsunami' of the food crisis. World Bank Chief Robert Zoellick claims that, if conditions do not drastically improve in the form of huge new amounts of food aid to indigent groups across parts of Africa and Asia, 100 million new people risk falling into extreme poverty. How can we accept this as, in any circumstance, acceptable? There do exist certain growing pains, which develop in economies as they transition to a freer, market-based system, but the absolute subjugation of .1 billion people to unbearable poverty seems, in any reckoning, unconscionable.