Today, March 31, marks the end of another FEC filing deadline. If your Congressman is anything like mine, you've already received several emails asking for money. Here's my response:
There's a new law being proposed called the Fair Elections Now Act that will end your fundraising problems forever.
A couple of weeks ago, Robert Dreyfuss predicted in The Nation that friends of the Israeli far right would attempt to torpedo Barack Obama's pick for Chairman of the National Intelligence Council: Charles (Chas) Freeman.
It was an easy prediction because it was already happening. The smears started months earlier on the right wing blog of Steve Rosen and then in February moved mainstream to the Wall Street Journal. Now, the anti-Freeman smears have worked their way up to the Halls of Congress, threatening Freeman's selection.
Freeman is an expert on Middle East policy and an outspoken critic of some of our recent foreign policy decisions. Yet for reasons not clearly articulated, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has a problem with him.
As Alaska's governor in 2007, Sarah Palin declared open hunting season on Alaskan wolves, offering a $150 bounty for each animal killed. This program drew cries of outrage from animal rights groups:
Defenders of Wildlife, the Alaska Wildlife Alliance and the Alaska Chapter of the Sierra Club asked the Alaska Superior Court to shut down Governor Palin's $150-per-wolf bounty program citing the fact that Alaska's bounty laws were repealed in 1984 and the State has no current legal authority to implement the bounties.
"The Governor is overstepping her legal authority by offering cash payments for each wolf killed by aerial gunners," stated Tom Banks, Defenders of Wildlife's Alaska Associate. "That's a bounty by anyone's standards regardless of what they call it."
To some Democrats, particularly those who supported Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama's nomination still doesn't feel right. There are a great many Democrats who don't know Obama's position on net neutrality and who don't pay too much attention to voting records -- even votes related to the Iraq War. To those Democrats, Hillary Clinton was next in line for the party's presidential nomination. And to them, Obama cut the line.
What's worse, Barack Obama represents another in a long line of men who got the top spot over a woman, despite the fact that the woman, in the views of many, was more experienced and more qualified.
To many women voters, as well as to union workers who believe that seniority matters and to seniors who believe that experience has value, the Obama nomination doesn't make sense. To them, it doesn't matter that Obama was right on the Iraq War, or that he put together a winning campaign, or that he represents "change we can believe in." To them, Obama cut the line. And that's just wrong.
But he can make it right.
To all those offended by the racist remarks made by Geraldine Ferraro, I wanted to extend a sincere apology. Whether you're an African-American, an Italian-American as I am, or any other kind of American, you know that Ferraro's comments had no place in Democratic politics.
Ferraro said, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
To imply that Barack Obama became president of the Harvard Law Review, gave up a lucrative legal career to work as a community organizer in Chicago, rose to prominence in the Illinois state senate, and then won election to the U.S. Senate all because of his race, is so offensive that it's simply indefensible.