McCain struggles to answer why men can get Viagra covered by health care insurance, but women cannot get contraception covered.

If anything can create a gender gap for Obama it is increasing awareness of McCain’s inability to understand the issue of reproductive freedom and how men and women are treated differently. Not just on the abortion issue, but in terms of contraception and women’s health care generally. There is a double-standard here that must be addressed and McCain just doesn’t get it.

Oh, and I’m thinking there are a lot of bad puns out there on this one…

According to the Washington Post, Sen. Barack Obama is taking time out of his Texas/Ohio schedule to campaign in both Rhode Island and Vermont. Here’s what the Post had to say:

“In a testament to the importance being placed on every state and delegate in the hard-fought Democratic contest, the candidate will take time away from Texas and Ohio to stump in this state as well as in Vermont, which will also hold a primary on Tuesday.”

Anyone else out there have any information on this?

Just a quick post to alert folks to the pending Supreme Court decision involving the Exxon Valdez and punitive damages awarded in that case. “Wait a minute,” you’re telling yourself “the Exxon Valdez disaster was years ago… decades ago!” You’re right. The spill occurred way back in 1989 and the litigation has been going on ever since. Sad, but true. Worst of all, the mess has never really been cleaned up, but that’s another story.

The court heard arguments yesterday involving the punitive damages awarded to the plaintiffs at jury trial back in 1994. In brief, Exxon is arguing that the drunken skipper was not an “agent” of the company per maritime law, and second that maritime law limits the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded. Oh yeah, here’s the beauty part… the laws they’re talking about are archaic and rarely at issue. One of the cases heavily relied on is, oh… about 200 years old.

The original award has already been cut in half; the criminal fines levied were settled, so Exxon didn’t have to pick up the full tab (taxpayers did), and the plaintiffs so far have received only about $15,000 each in settlement money or actual damages – at most even if they get the full punitive damage award of $2.5 billion they only stand to get about $75,000 each. Not enough to make up for lost jobs, whole industries and the wholesale destruction of biodiversity in that area. Finally, to add insult to injury, almost 20% of the original plaintiffs have already died (more than 6,000 people). This is truly a case of “justice delayed, justice denied.”

Don’t worry, though, the case is in good hands. Samuel Alito owns more than 100,000 shares of Exxon stock (he did recuse himself from the case).

I’ve got a longer post on this with links over at Mulish Behavior:

http://mulishbehavior.blogspot…

( – promoted by odum)

The Vermont Democrats announced today that Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut) will headline this year’s David W. Curtis Awards on April 25th at the Hilton in Burlington. The annual fundraising event is Vermont Democrats’ premier event and the biggest fundraiser of the year.

Quick, name three things you know about Chris Dodd! Well, you probably know he’s a Senator for Connecticut. You probably know he was a recent presidential candidate; and you may even know he was widely supported by the firefighter’s unions during that contest. All of the above are widely reported and were fairly recently in the news.

Here are three cool things about Dodd that maybe you didn’t know:

1) He helped secure passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act ensuring that working families don’t have to choose between their job and their family (he’s now working to try to encourage that time off be paid time-off according to his Senate website) – as my wife and I recently had a baby I can attest to the importance of this federal protection;

2) He helped establish the “pay as you go” rules back in 1983 which ensured that any programs requiring budget increases enacted were disciplined by accompanying tax increases or budget cuts. It was this kind of fiscal discipline that enabled the Democrats and Bill Clinton to finally balance the federal budget, and later to begin an unprecedented era of budget surpluses (until the Bush Administration took a wrecking ball to their handiwork), and sound fiscal management. His work on this has helped to ensure that Democrats are now more trusted to handle economic matters than Republicans; and

3) He served his Peace Corps stint in the Dominican Republic in Moncion, a tiny hamlet in the northwest part of the country. I traveled extensively in the D.R., living there between 1998 and 2000 and teaching 5th grade in Santo Domingo. But, I also lived in Santiago for awhile (the second largest city in the heart of the country), and traveled to that area up near Monte Cristi and Dajabon (the northwest crossing into Haiti). It’s a fantastic, rugged country. Most folks associate it with the fine beaches, but I associate it more with the interior: miles of friendly people, rugged mountains (the highest peak in the Caribbean, Pico Duarte – Just over 7,000 feet and named for the father of the country), and backpacking everywhere. It’s a wonderful travel destination if you enjoy getting off the beaten path.

You can find out more about Sen. Dodd at his Senate website: http://dodd.senate.gov/

Should be a great night for Vermont Democrats. My dad would be delighted.

** UPDATE: MSNBC reports that Dodd is set to endorse Sen. Barack Obama at a news conference in Cleveland, Ohio later today. Here’s the link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23…

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

Some critics of Sen. Barack Obama are suggesting he may not be patriotic enough to be president. Specifically, some Republicans are criticizing his failure to wear an American flag pin on his lapel, and a reported failure (once) to cover his heart during the singing of the national anthem as indicative of a lack of sufficient patriotism on his part. Rather than actually questioning Sen. Obama’s patriotism, this is actually an old story that some are trying to resurrect to blunt Obama’s momentum as he speeds to the nomination and the Republicans attempt to find something (anything!) to try to define him.

Is it true? Is our likely standard-bearer a “Freedom Hater”?! A “USA, U-S-A” chant breaker?! A flag burning defeatist?

Not even close. Obama’s own explanation is more eloquent than anything I can post. His words speak for themselves:

“I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.

You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. And you show your patriotism by being true to your values and ideals. And that’s what we have to lead with, our values and ideals.”

The truth is that millions of Americans go to work and school every day and don’t sport a flag pin on their lapel. Some do, for sure, and bully for them. I wager that most do not turn around and accuse their non-flag wearing friends and neighbors of being unpatriotic. The point is that patriotism is not measured by flair.

Ah, but they are not running for president, the critics might say. In this dangerous, post-9/11 world our leaders must literally wear their patriotism on their sleeve, they might say. Really? Did Abe Lincoln wear a flag pin throughout the Civil War? Umm, no. Does that make him any less of a patriot? I don’t think that’s a fair characterization of the man who saved the Union. What about Franklin D. Roosevelt, another wartime president? Did he wear a flag on his lapel? Nope. Sheesh, didn’t he worry that people would think he was an aryan sympathizer? Or, a Stalinist? Not likely. The simple truth is that those were serious men whose commitment to country was unquestioned because of what they said and what they did. Flag as fashion accessory was not a prerequisite for those times.

So what’s changed?

The first is that after 9/11 jingoism came back with a vengeance. Republicans quickly figured out that patriotism could be exploited to pass a foreign and domestic agenda that benefited the wealthiest Americans and largest corporations at the expense of the vast majority of Americans. If you questioned the policy, you were quickly labeled “unpatriotic” in the name of 9/11. Fear ruled and people got in line. Politically, it was a master stroke. But is political manoeuvering “patriotic”? It depends. If the manoeuvers are used to benefit the vast majority, call for shared sacrifice (and actually do so), and/or are legitimately financing a military effort, then arguably yes. But, simply exploiting a catastrophe or tragedy for purely political gain – that is to pick up congressional seats, or secure a presidency, or to pass an agenda that has no clear benefit for most Americans or saddles future generations with debt – is not patriotic political expression.

Second, there is a great deal of frustration and anger that Americans were paid lip service by President Bush but were never called to serve, or sacrifice after 9/11. So, the frustration and anger of many Americans who see the flag (either on car bumpers, or on lapels) as indicative of patriotism is justified, but misdirected when levied at others who have not brandished the symbol. The frustration is shared and should be directed at the one responsible for failing to bring Americans together: George W. Bush.

After 9/11 many (most?) Americans truly wanted to come together in a show of unity. Many wished to share the burden and sacrifice of giving something back to the American community. But there was no call for sacrifice. Rather than instituting a national call for service (either civil or military, or both (note: Bush did call for national service… remember FreedomCorps?! But he has since largely abandoned any real effort to make service a priority)), or calling for taxation to fight our foes abroad, or planting victory gardens to increase food production while reducing transportation costs of food, or calling for massive recycling drives – all of which we were called to do during wartime(s) in the past, our President instead called on us to “go shopping.” Frustrating, indeed.

So, Americans being independent and enterprising took it upon themselves to show support. In many cases they did volunteer their time and/or open up their wallets for a variety of causes. Many enlisted in the armed services. And, many took it upon themselves to make a statement by either wearing or displaying an American flag symbol. Some did both. Some did one or the other. In almost all cases, however the display of the flag as patriotic symbol was a personal statement, but not a measuring stick by which to demean other Americans who chose to act with patriotism rather than simply display it.

So, is patriotic display absent patriotic action more valuable than patriotic action absent patriotic display? I think clearly the answer is no. Anyone who goes into public service -whether civil or military is engaging in a patriotic act. After all, the sweat of your labor is going into the support and maintenance of the very institutions on which this great nation are founded. However, it is not required to wear a flag to prove you’re committed to your cause.

Unfortunately, the display of a flag on the lapel of many politicians seems somehow less an act of patriotism than it is a sword or shield to distinguish oneself to voters. I wear a flag; message to voter: I am not weak on terrorism. The inference, of course, then is that if you do not wear a flag then you are weak on terrorism. This seems to be the root of criticism leveled at Obama.

In any case, Sen. Obama’s actions are the very definition of patriotism: community organizing in low-income neighborhoods in Chicago; service in the Illinois General Assembly; service in the U.S. Senate; a presidential campaign premised on the twin messages of hope and change all wrapped up in the confident, optimistic slogan: “Yes, we can.” This is perhaps the most patriotic campaign effort since Ronald Reagan’s 1984 “Morning in America” campaign.

If Barack Obama can finally break through the cheap rhetoric of those who call unlabeled Americans “unpatriotic” and demonstrate that words and deeds signal more than simple pageantry, he would be rendering our nation a great service. We are traditionally a great and humble people. Patriotism is not a commodity, nor is it a monopoly owned by a political party. The very suggestion is unpatriotic.

Perhaps through this criticism (and his defense of it) Sen. Obama will reestablish that patriotism is an idea… a sentiment… a feeling; it is worn in the soul, not on the sleeve. That would make this patriot proud indeed.

** This is cross-posted with links to sources at http://mulishbehavior.blogspot…

(Good diary. – promoted by JulieWaters)

… I guess it’s the “ability” part. Douglas is rightly being criticized for gutting money for the housing and conservation board in his budget. That’s money set aside for land conservation and affordable housing in Vermont. Gov. Dean always found money to put into VHCB (the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, which administers the Vermont Housing and Conservation Trust Fund) because he knew that Vermonters value the land, that it would help family farms, and that it created opportunities for Vermonters to put a roof over their heads at reasonable cost. But, it’s not just advocates objecting to these short-sighted cuts. Legislators are catching on as well.

Read Vermont Land Trust Past President, Darby Bradley’s excellent op-ed here: http://www.rutlandherald.com/a…

And, another good one from Sen. Jim Condos here: http://www.burlingtonfreepress…

Finally, here’s one from Kim McCarty of the Vermont Center for Independent Living: http://www.burlingtonfreepress…

So what exactly is Douglas proposing? How about a 30% (or $5 million) cut in funding. That represents a loss of 120 affordable housing units, and saving 10 family farms and 10 community conservation efforts.

According to the Vermont Land Trust, “in the past 20 years, VHCB investments in Vermont communities have created more than 8500 permanently affordable homes and apartments and conserved more than 500 farms and 250,000 acres of forests and natural areas. For two decades, this has all made sense because affordable housing and conservation have strengthened our communities, conserved our world-class landscapes and in turn advanced our economic vitality.”

This is Douglas’ idea of promoting “affordability”?! Sounds more like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Maybe his public service announcement (ironically titled “Stretch Your Limits”) should be retooled for Vermonters whose economic limits are being stretched. He doesn’t even have to change his lines: “I’d like to challenge all Vermonters [sic] to stretch their limits this winter… then write to me and tell me how it’s helping you…” If you want a chuckle, you can check Slim-Jim’s PSA over at YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v… (thanks to Nancy Remsen of the Free Press for posting the link over at VT Buzz).

Hmm. Not a bad idea. Why not write Jim Douglas and tell him how his so-called “affordability” agenda, and that of his friend George W. Bush, is stretching us all to our limits (one new report out today even shows how Americans are tapping their retirement funds today in order to get by). The GOP agenda has helped us to record high gas and home heating oil prices; skyrocketing housing and rental costs; inaccessible and/or unaffordable health care, and skewed budget priorities that help the most affluent but do little for the rest of us.

While Douglas has routinely campaigned on, and championed, this agenda Democrats should hang this around his neck like the albatross it truly is and make him pay for his empty promises. If we don’t we’ll all be paying for it for years to come.

How about this for a Democratic coordinated campaign message: “Are You Better Off Now Than You Were Six Years Ago?” (with apologies to Ronald Reagan… Obama was right, he did have some good ideas!).

cross-posted at http://mulishbehavior.blogspot…

(Heh. “Romnivore.” Heh heh… – promoted by odum)

OK, so Mitten has dropped out. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23…

What to do if you are part of the GOP Conservative Establishment? You don’t like McCain… that’s why you were for Mitt to begin with. Do you heart Huckabee now?

Granted McCain now appears to have this thing sewn up, but if Huckabee doesn’t drop out and continues to campaign through the other primary states, it could be interesting to see what the “true” conservatives decide to do – both organizationally and in the money race.

Also, if Mitt’s strategy is to angle for a VP slot as an “economic” counterweight to McCain’s foreign policy credentials (not likely in any event as the two men apparently can’t stand one another… on the other hand, I seem to recall there was no love lost between JFK and LBJ, yet they forged a ticket for strategic reasons), what to do if Huckabee continues to pick up southern states, and arguably the conservative mantle? Some suggest that Huckabee may now drop out and lobby for the VP slot: http://www.boston.com/bostongl…

Still, it looks like the Republicans are doing what they always do: circle the wagons and annoint the frontrunner in hopes of preserving an orderly nominating process.  

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

cross posted at http://mulishbehavior.blogspot…

Congress and the Bush Administration (with the blessing of Sec. Paulson) have struck a tentative deal to send between $300 and $600 each to working Americans (so up to $1,200 for married couples, plus an extra $300 for each kid). Hallelujah, and glory be…

This is a cheap trick that should insults the intelligence of our citizenry. The rationale is simple enough: Give working Americans a little cash in their pockets and they will go out and spend, spend, spend(!) thus giving the American economy a shot in the arm and avoiding recession.

The message is to simply continue conspicuous consumption… ie, we can simply spend our way out of this mess. The problem is that it doesn’t work.

Back in 2001 they tried this rebate trick, too. It didn’t work then, and it won’t work now. Studies show that only about 20% of respondents to polling on the issue said they actually spent the money on durable goods. The Tax Foundation notes one survey that showed: “the spending rate was quite low compared to what many economists had expected.” Another study showed the figure slightly higher (between 20%-40% spent) and argued that it did have a significant effect on the economy. Even if you believe that study, it’s not the picture that our friends in Washington, D.C. paint of folks running into the street waving hundred dollar bills.

I remember getting my check for $300. I used it to pay off some credit card bills. And, trust me, I would rather have done without it and known it would help pay off the national debt, build new schools, or pave roads. The specious argument that many conservatives use is to say: go for it! Send your check back to the government if that’s the way you feel… or send it to a non-profit organization. While the latter is certainly an attractive and plausible option, the former doesn’t make any sense. A singular contribution to the federal government does nothing. The purpose of taxation is so that many small contributions from millions of citizens adds up to a substantial pool of money that may be used for the public weal.

Now, what else did we get for that $300/person back in 2001? Hmmm. How about federal deficits as far as the eye can see? How about cuts to federal aid to states, reductions in essential human services, and more unfunded federal mandates. Such a deal!

Honestly, if you think about it how much is $300, or even $600 per worker going to get you? A month’s rent (if your rent is cheap)… While it is a not-insignificant amount of money for low-income workers, the reality is that it’s just not enough to get anyone through six months or a year of hard times that lay ahead. In short, the proposed stimulus package sends the wrong message for the wrong time.

Instead of using a transparent (if popular) election year trick to put a small amount of cash into the hands of Americans, why not focus on a real, long-term stimulus plan?

Such a plan might include:

1) Rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans (over $200,000);

2) Repealing (or at least recalibrating) the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) so that middle-income Americans are no longer caught in its clutches;

3) Using the new tax revenue from the wealthiest Americans to pay for unemployment insurance compensation extensions, increases in food stamp benefits, and workforce training (this was considered by the House, but they stripped it from the bill in order to move it; the Senate may put it back in, but there’s no telling if a conference committee will pass it, or if Bush will sign it with these provision included).

4) Corporate welfare reform – specifically stripping oil and coal research and development from the already hugely profitable private companies we subsidize and putting it into real renewable energy R&D and implementation. How about replacing every oil derrick in Texas with a wind turbine?

5) Balancing the federal budget.

If we have learned anything since the Bush Administration took over in 2001 it is that its economic policies are pure bunk. It took the largest budget surplus in American history and turned it into the largest deficit. This stimulus package will only make it worse.

How come nobody is talking about this?!

Actually some people are. Michael Bloomberg has just come out panning the entire package. The guy has some smarts, and some cojones. According to news reports of his comments on the package at a speech before the U.S. Conference of Mayors he said: “We can’t borrow our way out of this. The jig is up.” And, “It’s not going to make much of a difference because we’ve already been running huge deficits. If we spend all the money right now, and there is no recovery because of it, then we don’t have a second hand to play.”

His solution? According to Newsday: “Bloomberg argued that the government’s first goal should be to stop the bleeding in the housing sector. “What good is a rebate going to do for a family who’s about to lose the place that they sleep in?” he said. Instead, the mayor argued, the government should:

Adopt a capital budget to oversee long-term infrastructure spending, instead of the current year-to-year spending.

Offer financial counseling, modified loans and, in some cases, subsidized loans to homeowners who find themselves unable to afford their mortgages.

Overhaul immigration laws to bring more workers in, not keep workers out.”

Wow… how refreshing. Instead of demonizing immigrants and demagoguing the immigration issue, there is a politician out there who actually says “let them in…” the words on the Statue of Liberty actually still mean something:

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:

I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

If anyone should know the meaning of that old Emma Lazarus poem (“The New Colossus”), it would be the Mayor of New York. Is this guy actually going to run for President? An independent truth-teller (and former Democrat) who is self-funded and not as crazy as Ross Perot could sure make the race very interesting.

(Nicely put. – promoted by JulieWaters)

FYI, there’s a 7-minute video of Peter Galbraith discussing the Iraq War and the Bush Administration’s handling of it, the surge, and its broader implications over at Mulish Behavior: http://mulishbehavior.blogspot…

Worth checking out.

Also, I disagree with the conventional wisdom that Douglas cruises in a 3-way race. Rather, Douglas has it much easier in a head-to-head race against Pollina.

How’s that?

For starters, there is a large percentage of old-guard Democrats who simply WILL NOT vote for a Progressive, regardless of how much courting goes on, and regardless of whether the Democratic leadership could convince someone from running to give him a free pass (which won’t happen). In that case, Douglas either picks up those folks (“Douglas Democrats”?), or they take a pass on voting in that race. So, Douglas stands to win with anywhere from 55%-45% (best case for Pollina), or perhaps in a landslide somewhere around 65% or 70% to Pollina’s 35% or 30%) (more likely).

Second, in a 3-way race, the Democrats will vote, and turnout will be high in a hotly contested presidential election year. So, it does provide the opening to keep Douglas with a plurality of the vote – either throwing it to the legislature and allowing the 3rd place candidate to make a public appeal to throw their votes to the 2nd place candidate), or at a minimum hampering him by denying him a mandate.

Lastly, might I suggest that if the Dems put forth aggressive energy and health plans this session and Douglas vetoes them, or if the economy continues to worsen, OR, any number of other X-factors come into play (suppose Galbraith outraises Douglas using his national/international connections – who knows?!), then perhaps, just perhaps, the Democrat finishes first. Not entirely outside the realm of possibility if all the stars align.

Anthony Pollina’s day just got a little worse… and Jim Douglas probably thinks he’s got it made (although that false sense of security may be his undoing) as Peter Galbraith takes another step towards running for Governor.

Today Galbraith sent out an email touting his “Vermont Leadership Fund” which will support candidates at all levels, but presumably serves as the official “dipping of the toe” into gubernatorial waters.

“Interesting,” as Peter Freyne would say. You can check out the message and contribute at: http://www.vermontleadershipfu…

I think I’ll send something his way and see what happens. Maybe this guy CAN give Douglas a run for his money. At least he’s got the guts not to be scared off by Douglas and/or Pollina. Anyone else?