Recently, I wrote about how Bill Richardson, John Edwards and Barack Obama all participated in a Democracy for America (DFA) Q and A session where members ask the candidates questions and the candidates produce a You Tube video in response that is distributed to DFA members. This is, in essence, practically free advertising and a great chance to get your message out to a particularly active group of likely voters. I though Richardson, Edwards and Obama all did well, and if you go to my diary, I have the videos there for you to watch.

Hillary Clinton did not participate. I though this was both stupid and rude of her, particularly given the strong role DFA played in the 2006 elections. Some readers disagreed, suggesting she had no reason to participate. Well, before I cover the LATEST stupid and rude blow off by Clinton, I want to explain why her actions were stupid.

DFA boasts of a membership of well over half a million members. It is safe to say that most of these members are likely voters and, though some may be registered Green, or Working Families Party or Independent, most are Democrats. Of that half a million, about 50,000 are particularly active, organizing or participating in events, doing the footwork for candidates, and donating money...$2.6 million donated to candidates by the end of 2006. DFA's local affiliates cover 98% of America's Congressional districts. THIS is what Hillary Clinton chose to blow off.

For almost no money, Hillary could have joined Richardson, Obama and Edwards in sending her message to these 500,000 likely voters. But she didn't. To me that is just plain dumb.

And now, Hillary Clinton has chosen to blow off ANOTHER large group of voters: Native Americans.

The Indigenous Democratic Network (INDN), founded by Kalyn Free of the Choctaw Nation, has been working to empower Native Americans by educating them as voters, training activists, getting out the vote and electing candidates from Indian Country. In 2006, their efforts were decisive in tipping the Pennsylvania state legislature for the Democrats.

For 2008, INDN is organizing an event called "Prez on the Rez" which gives the Democratic presidential candidates a chance to reach out to Indian Country.

Bill Richardson was the first candidate to accept the invitation and recorded a special message for INDN, which does honor to Native Americans. By contrast, Hillary Clinton is the first and only (to date) candidate to spcifically REFUSE to participate in Prez on the Rez. Here is the press release from INDN:

Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton today became the first and only candidate to refuse an invitation to speak at a first-ever candidate forum in Indian Country. The forum, called Prez on the Rez by its organizers, the INDN's List Education Fund (ILEF), will be August 23, on the reservation of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians in Cabazon, Calif. Senator Clinton was invited to Prez on the Rez more than six months ago.

Kalyn Free, president of the Tulsa-based ILEF, said, "Hillary Clinton's willingness to ignore Indian voters on the campaign trail has made it clear that she lacks the courage to change lives in Indian Country."

"I'm both disappointed and astonished that Senator Clinton has turned her back on American Indians. By refusing to participate in this historic event, she lost an opportunity to inspire an entire generation of American Indians to engage in the democratic process. Sadly, that reflects the hollowness of her rhetoric and the narrowness of her vision," said Free. "Just as tribes are gaining recognition for building political power in key states throughout the country, Senator Clinton is ignoring the needs - large and small - of Indian People. We demand a president who truly cares about who we are, who has the courage to change the shameful state of life in Indian Country and throughout America, and who has the vision to build a society all Americans can be proud of. I'm disheartened to say that Senator Clinton has proven she is not that leader."

Free said Senator Clinton made "starting a conversation" about strengthening the middle class, making healthcare more affordable, and bolstering the lives of children and families, the centerpieces of her campaign. On each of these counts, reflected in a staggering array of statistics, Indian Country falls far behind the rest of the nation, yet her proposals - detailed over the past two weeks - reflect the priorities of her campaign: they ignore Indian Country entirely.

On Memorial Day, Senator Clinton declared expanded healthcare coverage "a moral imperative," and proposed a solution involving investments in modernizing medicine and eliminating waste in the industry. While these improvements may cut costs for the majority of Americans who already have access to adequate healthcare, it will do nothing for the 30 percent of Indians who lack health coverage and the millions more whose reservations lie far from the modern medical facilities Senator Clinton hopes to improve. The waiting list for new "priority" healthcare facilities in Indian Country is nearly 60 years. Tribal citizens need champions that are not afraid to increase funding for tribal health programs. The need for this health funding is staggering: life expectancy of Native Americans is nearly six years less than any other race or ethnic group in America and 13% of Native deaths occur in citizens under 25, a rate three times higher than the average U.S. population.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights reported in 2003 that "American Indian youths are twice as likely to commit suicide. Native Americans are 630 percent more likely to die from alcoholism, 650 percent more likely to die from tuberculosis, 318 percent more likely to die from diabetes, and 204 percent more likely to suffer accidental death compared with other groups. "In a plan Senator Clinton outlined the following day, the Democrat proposed strengthening the middle class by protecting workers, reining in federal spending, punishing corporations that move jobs overseas, and supporting higher education. Yet outsourced jobs can hardly account for the 46% unemployment rate in Indian Country, where one in four live in poverty.

Clinton's indifference to Indian Country extends to the women and families that comprise its future. Free argues that Clinton should take a look at the lifelong disparities that face American Indians as they age, both on and off the reservation. A recent publication issued by Amnesty International reported one in three American Indian women will be raped at some point in their lives, a rate that is more than double that for non-Indian women. "The crisis of children and families in Indian Country continues to limit the opportunities for American Indians to build a better future, while Senator Clinton's willingness to ignore the state of Indians ensures the continuation of a terrible status quo," Free said.

Now I was not able to track down how many Native American voters are in America, but increasingly the Native American vote has been important in several states and, according to one analysis, it could play an important role in the 2008 election. To quote from a review of that analysis:

According to an article in the New York Times on September 24, 2004, "In the last few years, political races from Congress to county sheriff have begun to hinge on the Indian vote ... ." Indian tribes also have become big players in campaign contributions, lobbying and running candidates for office. Co-author McCool says that with the growing influence of the Western states in presidential primaries, the Indian vote will become even more important. "I think it's safe to say that there are specific scenarios where the presidential race could hinge on the vote in some Western states, much like it did on Florida in 2000 or Pennsylvania in 2004. Indian voters have already proven that they can swing statewide elections in Washington, Arizona, New Mexico and South Dakota. If any of these states becomes pivotal in a tight presidential race, the Indian vote could make the difference," says McCool.

"Native Vote" is the first book-length analysis of the newfound political power of American Indian people. It describes the long struggle of American Indians to get the right to vote, and explains how they are wielding this power to influence elections, and benefit tribes. The book offers an analysis of the 70-plus court cases in Indian Country that were based on the Voting Rights Act; several such cases are still in the courts. "Native Vote" is the only comprehensive study of these cases. The Voting Rights Act was reauthorized by Congress in September 2006, so there is a strong likelihood that many more cases will be filed in the future. There was a time when American Indians were not considered players on the political stage. That perception has changed dramatically in recent years, and all indications are that Native peoples are now a potent force in Western politics. "Native Vote" explains how this change came about, and how it is affecting contemporary elections.

Sorry, Hillary. Much as I think you have considerable potential to make a good president, to date you are giving me no reason whatsoever to support you in the primary.