President

UPDATE: Sometimes a story is too good to be true. Even though this story sounds plausible, turns out http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/kinsley.asp ">it's been debunked on Snopes.com.

While John McCain is eagerly embracing Bush and vowing to continue Bush's failed policies, it may be a good idea to remember what Ronald Reagan thought of the Little Bush:

"A moment I've been dreading. George brought his n'er-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida; the one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll hire him as a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work."

From the REAGAN DIARIES------entry dated May 17, 1986.

So this is the guy we had shoved down our throats and who John McCain wants to emulate?

Time for the voters to reject the failed Bush/McCain poli

The Big Bush, Little Gerogie Bush, and Jeb Bush have all given John McCain their approval. Could there be a worse endorsement?

The Bush family have brought us two of the least popular Presidents in American history.

The Bush family helped arm Saddam Hussein before declaring him our enemy. They have brought us two Iraq wars, the most recent has turned into a quagmire sucking our soldiers and dollars down with no end in sight and no exit stratgy and no strategic purpose.

The Bush family helped arm al-Qaeda, then stupidly ignored warnings of an impending attack, allowing al-Qaeda to hit us hard. And they have failed to stop al-Qaeda even AFTER they attacked us.

The Bush family has brought us some of the worst economic times since the Great Depression, giving us no fewer than three rescessions with little recovery under their watch. Job growth under the Bush family has been rock bottom.

The Bush family represents nothing but failed domestic policy, failed foreign policy and deficits, deficits, deficits. About the only people who still like the Bush family are their good friends in Saudi Arabia: the Royal Saud family and their close allies, the bin Laden family.

I think I have decided. Yeah...I've been all over the place. Kucinich most closely matches my personal beliefs. Well, he never had a shot and he's out anyway. Richardson impressed me the most as an experienced statesman. But he could barely raise enthusiasm even with an almost awed Jon Stewart soft balling him on the Daily Show. Richardson perhaps was the BEST person to be President...but possibly the worst candidate.

John Edwards almost got me. I like his focus on poverty, his speech at Pace University on foreign policy, and I figured he fit the mold of people who win as Democrats: young, charismatic with a hint of sexuality about him. But he failed even to take his own birth state and I can't say I ever became ENTHUSIASTIC about him.

Now, one thing that I am pleased as punch about is the fact that it is almost certain that the Democratic primary will nominate either a woman or a black. The white guys couldn't get out of the starting gate with any momentum. The first states to caucus/primary aren't exactly the hot beds of progressivism, at least on the surface. Yet they each favored either the black guy or the woman...often the white guy came in third. As a phenomenon, and given that all three are competent, intelligent people who would be good Presidents, I think it is well worth feeling good about that. For most of my life that could NEVER have happened.

Tonight was the presidential forum of my local Democratic Club, Independent Neighborhood Democrats. We had representatives from the four top candidates: Barack Obama, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson. I was present not just as a board member of the club, and not just as a blogger. I was there as an undecided voter. Yep...though I am vocally opinionated and adament on so many issues, I am as yet undecided on Presidential nominees.

Today's forum did not change that. I left with pretty much the same impressions of all the four top candidates as I entered with. This is not necessarily a bad thing because I am undecided largely because we have, as City Councilman Bill DeBlasio, while speaking for Hillary Clinton, pointed out, one of the best fields of candidates in recent memory. His memory probably goes back a tad more than mine, but I agree that this is a far cry from "Gary Hart and the Seven Dwarfs". One thing I felt during this forum, as I felt at several moments in this elongated election cycle, is that I would be proud to support ANY of our top tier candidates for President over any of the Republicans. I would eagerly campaign for Obama, Edwards...even Richardson and Clinton. These are extremely intelligent and compentent people who would make good Presidents. I agree with Bill DeBlasio that we have an embarassment of riches this year. No...none of them is the perfect candidate to me. But all of them are pretty damned good.

[UPDATE: Rumor Confirmed...]

Rumor has it that Wes Clark is endorsing Hillary Clinton. To me this was easily predictable. For a long time I saw Wes positioning himself to run. He was acting like a candidate early on. I predicted if he did run it would hurt Hillary because they have overlapping pools of supporters and run in roughly the same political circles.

Then, suddenly Wes Clark stopped acting like a candidate. He quieted down and started to sound more like someone positioning himself for alliances, rather than being the focus of an alliance himself. It struck me that his sudden change in behavior probably meant someone made him an offer...and the someone who seemed most likely to make him an offer was Hillary Clinton.

Now, if the rumor is true, Wes has endorsed Hillary.

What offer would it take to get him to back out and back Hillary? Possibly Sec. of State. But I really think the smart thing would be for Hillary to pick Clark for her running mate. I think a Clinton/Clark ticket would be a strong one and would boost Hillary's chances a great deal.

So prediction #1: if Hillary gets the nomination, Wes is her VP choice.

I feel pretty safe in making that prediction. Interestingly, when I discussed Clark and Clinton as appealing to the same basic pool of supporters, I was attacked by Clark supporters who wanted him to be their progressive savior and couldn't abide seeing him as a centrist. Wonder how they feel now if he does endorse Hillary and does become her VP choice.

Bush has chosen to use is veto for the third time. Two of those three vetoes were used to block stem cell research. Yes...vital research that offers promise to millions of people suffering from many diseases.

Stem cell research offers the chance to grow new heart valvues, allowing for quicker and safer life-saving heart surgery.

Stem cell research offers possibilities to cure Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. It offers the chance to repair and replace nerves, giving the paralyzed hope. Stem cells are useful in practically every level of medical research.

What is the down side to stem cell research? Well, I guess you don't get to incinerate all those un-used embryos that don't get used for in vitro fertilization. Why is he so in favor of burning balls of cells rather than using it to save lives?

Bush's most consistent veto has been to condemn thousands of Americans to death, dementia or paralysis when science could help them. He has turned his back on science, on medicine, on life. Everyone in America should be disgusted by Bush's veto. You can disagree about Iraq. Some may still cling to the thin belief that we might someday accomplish something, though to date the decline of Iraq under our watch has been an absolute travisty.

But how could ANYONE think they are accomplishing anything by insisting unused embryos from fertility treatments be burned instead of used to save lives?

Rudy Giuliani is running for President as the "You All Loved me on 9/11" candidate. But it seems the real heroes of 9/11, the first responders who gave the most, aren't buying it. The International Association of Firefighters are hosting a bi-partisan Presidential Forum on March 14th...and Giuiliani is SPECIFICALLY not invited. This is the letter from the Firefighters' Union to its affiliates regarding tomorrow's forum and the decision to shut out Rudy. I quote it in its entirety.

Firefighters Union Letter On Rudy Giuliani
March 8, 2007

On March 14, 2007, the IAFF will host the first bi-partisan Presidential Forum of the 2008 election cycle. No other union and very few organizations has the credibility and respect to attract top-tier candidates from both political parties. The lineup of speakers who have agreed to participate in our Forum is truly a testament to our great union and the reputation we have built as a powerful political force and a coveted endorsement.

John Edwards, John McCain, Barack Obama, Chuck Hagel, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Duncan Hunter and seven other candidates will make their case before the 1,000 delegates who will be attending the Forum and to our entire membership via same-day broadcast on our web site.

Early on, the IAFF made a decision to invite all serious candidates from both political parties — except one: former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Bush travels to Latin America and is greeted by this: (from BBC News)

In Brazil, more than 10,000 protesters (according to BBC news) turned out in the capital of Sao Paulo to protest the arrival of America's appointed President, Georgoe Bush. I wonder if our good friend, Francis Holland, is participating :-)

This is a time when world opinion is solidly against America. This is dramatically show by a recent poll that showed that people view America as marginally MORE destabilizing a force than North Korea and only slightly less destabilizing than Iran. To the world, America is part of the Axis of Evil.

This is played out in Latin America as well. In Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, strongly anti-American, socialist presidents have been elected by democratic vote and are extremely popular. Throughout Latin America, including in Brazil, Peru and Chile, leftist governments have been voted into office. In Nicaragua Daniel Ortega, the boogie man of the Reagan era, has been elected President.

We are not popular in the world, not even in our own backyard. Brazil President Lula's own party is protesting Bush's arrival!

I have been for impeachment ever since it became clear to me that we were being "led" by a "president" who was corrupt, a criminal, lying to get us into wars, violating the Constitution, etc. But for various reasons I wasn't relly anxious to see impeachment attempted. It seemed too hard to make the case, too divisive when I wanted to see Democrats seen as the reasonable, uniting force in America, and I wanted to see Democrats get some things accomplished rather than be seen as obstructionist.

Several things have largely changed my mind. What crystalized it was meeting former Congresswoman from Brooklyn, Liz Holtzman, at my local Democratic Club this last week. You see, Liz Holtzman was a member of the House of Representatives in the early '70's and was one of the people who constructed the Articles of Impeachment against Richard Nixon. She has written a book on the topic called "The Impeachment of George W. Bush" and her top arguement for impeachment is based on an exact precedent from 1974. In other words, Bush has committed one act for which there already is an article of impeachment constructed, written and voted on in Congress. All that needs to be done is for the current Congress to apply the 1974 precedent to our current President.

I am a pragmatist. I believe in getting things done and if something isn't going to work you don't put a lot of time into it. So, I have been reluctant to support impeachment even though I feel the grounds are certainly there. When people talk impeachment I am tentatively interested, but I have tended to want to focus more on exposing Republican corruption to dispel the myth of the "moral" party, build the Democrats as the reasonable, effecitve, fiscally responsible and reformist party, and win some seats in Congress. Impeachment seemed like an impossible dream that could become a very damaging nightmare.

Margaret's diary about Paul Robeson, jr. reminded me of my friend, Chris Owens, who recently ran unsuccessfully for Congress in my district. Chris has taken the infrastructure he built in his very grassroots bid for Congress and is trying to perpetuate it, trying to prevent the usual progressive grassroots practice of disbanding after each effort to have to reinvent themselves each time a good candidate comes along. I have written about Chris before as one example of what I call a "community canidate," one who has a record of helping the community before running for office.

Chris now has his own blog, which I recommend people pay some attention to because Chris is intelligent, articulate and very progressive. He leans a bit to the left of me, but is a very smart man.

Many have already started backing horses in the 2008 Democratic primary. I tend to stay neutral and open minded until fairly late in the game. I admit that I am eyeing John Edwards for various reasons, mostly strategic. In some ways I am getting a gut feeling (and my political gut feelings have been reasonably acurate in the past) that and Edwards/Richardson ticket would be our best shot at winning. Once I formulate my gut feeling a bit more, I may even blog on that. But my personal preferences remain undecided.