« October 26, 2008 - November 1, 2008 | Main | November 9, 2008 - November 15, 2008 »

November 8, 2008

I Was Right to Worry About Black Homophobia

Seventy percent of African American voters approved Prop. 8, according to exit polls, compared to 53 percent of Latino voters, 49 percent of white voters, 49 percent of Asian voters.

I'm done pretending that the handful of racist gay white men out there—and they're out there, and I think they're scum—are a bigger problem for African Americans, gay and straight, than the huge numbers of homophobic African Americans are for gay Americans, whatever their color.

Leaving aside the question of whether or not there are only a "handful of racist gay white men" (and what of racist lesbians and non-white gays?) Dan, as usual, has the biggest pair out there. He's right to demand that blacks explain themselves on this issue.

In a forthcoming essay for MoJo in print, I wrestle with the question of how Obama moves us into a harmonious racial future. One point my verbosity kept me from is the requirement that Obama force blacks to answer the question of whether "civil rights" means what it says or really just means "black rights". If we're gonna talk the talk, we gotta walk the walk and explain why homosexuals should have their civil rights abrogated and why we, "America's conscience," are leading the charge to deny them the right to marry.

I'm not saying the argument can't be made. I'm saying that blacks aren't being required to make it. So, here it is in simplest terms, black people: Why is discrimination against blacks based on skin color immoral, but discrimination against gays based on sexual orientation moral?

We're waiting...

Posted by Debra Dickerson on 11/08/08 at 2:43 PM | | Comments (71) | E-mail | Print | Digg | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Yahoo MyWeb | StumbleUpon | Newsvine | Netscape | Google |

November 7, 2008

Contractors Nervous About Losing Immunity in Iraq

The UN mandate governing the US military's deployment in Iraq will expire next month. To negotiate the way forward, Baghdad and Washington have been in feverish talks about an official Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which will set parameters for the US presence in Iraq, as well as set a date certain for withdrawal. US officials have now presented their Iraqi counterparts with that they call a "final text," committing US troops to be withdrawn to their bases by next June and withdrawn from Iraq entirely no later than 2011. Baghdad has been cagey about assenting to a final agreement for myriad political reasons, although today's New York Times suggests that Obama's election victory might help move things along—the Iraqis actually believe his stated desire to pull out the troops is sincere.

Fine, but what about private contractors? The "final text" US officials presented this week does not include immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts for privately employed personnel, be they with security firms or international NGOs. The risk of seeing their employees in the dock in Baghdad or elsewhere for alleged violations of Iraqi law is giving private industry fits and leading to speculation of an "exodus" of private contractors once the UN mandate expires.

The industry is so concerned, in fact, that the president of one of its leading trade groups fired off a letter (.pdf), dated October 8, to Condoleeza Rice, suggesting that loss of contractor immunity could put the success of the US effort in Iraq at risk. Stan Soloway of the Professional Services Council, which counts leading Iraq contractors like Blackwater, DynCorp, Kroll, CACI, BAE, SAIC, EODT, and Bechtel among its members, warned against the "unintended consequences" of lifting immunity. Here's an excerpt:

According to recent estimates from U.S. Central Command and the Congressional Budget Office, there are tens of thousands of contractor employees currently working in Iraq proper, about twenty percent of the whom are U.S. citizens. The vast majority of these individuals are supporting critical infrastructure and economic, health care, agricultural, education, financial and other development activities. Many of them are the technical experts providing program and project management, design and other guidance, training and assistance needed to ensure the success of redevelopment and reconstruction initiatives. Our member companies are deeply concerned that given the still embryonic nature of the Iraqi legal system and the general in-country environment, the absence of reasonable protections under law that provide for adequate due process and more could have very real, deleterious impacts on the success of those critical missions.

Soloway went on to request a meeting with Rice to talk things over. There's no word on whether it took place.

Posted by Bruce Falconer on 11/07/08 at 1:17 PM | | Comments (4) | E-mail | Print | Digg | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Yahoo MyWeb | StumbleUpon | Newsvine | Netscape | Google |

Did Palin Declare Her Clothes as Gifts?

Sarah Palin is the gift that keeps on giving--at least to journalists. Newsweek got a pop this week when it disclosed new details of Palin's infamous shopping sprees:

NEWSWEEK has also learned that Palin's shopping spree at high-end department stores was more extensive than previously reported. While publicly supporting Palin, McCain's top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast," and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.

The Palin camp--such as it is--continues to deny she did anything wrong. But Alaska government watchdog Andrée McLeod is seeking information to determine whether Palin and her family kept any of these clothes. In recent months, McLeod has peppered Governor Palin's office with various Open Records Act requests. In response to a request McLeod filed in June, the Palin administration refused to release about 1100 emails from her office, claiming they covered confidential policy matters, even though the subject lines in some of these emails referred to a political foe, a journalist and non-policy topics. Now McLeod is focusing on Palin's Neiman Marcus free-for-all. This week, she filed a request for copies of "every record of gift disclosures assigned to Sarah Palin and all family members and/or extended family members (according to state regulations) since July 1, 2008."

The question, of course, is, did Palin declare any of the clothes she and her family acquired as gifts? Or did she consider them loaners (as convicted Senator Ted Stevens unsuccessfully claimed in regards to the gifts he received)? Under Alaska state law, Palin generally has to disclose gifts over $150.00 that she or a family member receives. McCleod wants to see what gift disclosures, if any, Palin has filed.

By the way, McLeod and others (including Mother Jones) have requests pending regarding the emails Palin has sent and received as governor (using her official and private accounts). Palin managed to delay producing these records until after the election. But the requests are still being processed by her office. By the time this information is released--and it may take months--will there still be much interest in the governor of Alaska?

Posted by David Corn on 11/07/08 at 11:36 AM | | Comments (12) | E-mail | Print | Digg | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Yahoo MyWeb | StumbleUpon | Newsvine | Netscape | Google |

Post-Obama, Whither Black Uplift?

Mark Anthony Neal asks the same question I'm wondering now that Obama is President-elect—whither black progress:

Obama showed a particular disdain throughout his 21-month campaign with being thought of as a black candidate or as a broker for black issues. The President-elect will likely show the same disdain for a black political establishment wholly wedded to the race politics of a quarter century ago.

If the NAACP, National Urban League and Congressional Black Caucus aim to remain relevant in the future, it is this new coalition of progressives that they will need to provide leadership for, taking advantage of the political will that Obama's campaign has generated.

How do groups like the NAACP and Urban league play a leadership role in a broad progressive movement—in which race is only part of a broader platform centered on traditional issues of social justice (policing, incarceration rates, equitable wages), tax relief for middle income families, a repeal of No Child Left Behind and what Van Jones, in the name of the Green Industry, calls Eco-equity?

Mark (my almost-homey/beloved 'boy') is too well-mannered to answer his own question, but I will: The old school Movement apparatus won't play a role in the social justice movement as long as it stays wedded to its old tactics.

Real as racism remains, the only way to move forward using the algorithm that Obama pioneered—cross-class, cross-racial, cross-age—is by including everyone. Maddening as it is for blacks, America's most oppressed minority, we have to accept that the country must move to class- and problem-based formulations of both problems, and solutions—not just demands for America to admit to its race- and classism.

The only way a broad swath of Americans will agree to anything smelling of affirmative action is if a broad swath can benefit from it. So blacks have to join the rainbow coalition calling for WPA-type responses to the rampant unemployment we're facing, educational reform and investment based on the socio-economic class of underserved communities and not just 'black' schools, criminal justice system reforms that include rednecks and trailer parks, not just 'hoods. Don't believe me?

Check this.

From A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn, described on Amazon thusly via Publishers Weekly:

According to this classic of revisionist American history, narratives of national unity and progress are a smoke screen disguising the ceaseless conflict between elites and the masses whom they oppress and exploit. Historian Zinn sides with the latter group in chronicling Indians' struggle against Europeans, blacks' struggle against racism, women's struggle against patriarchy, and workers' struggle against capitalists. First published in 1980, the volume sums up decades of post-war scholarship into a definitive statement of leftist, multicultural, anti-imperialist historiography. This edition updates that project with new chapters on the Clinton and Bush presidencies, which deplore Clinton's pro-business agenda, celebrate the 1999 Seattle anti-globalization protests and apologize for previous editions' slighting of the struggles of Latinos and gays. Zinn's work is an vital corrective to triumphalist accounts, but his uncompromising radicalism shades, at times, into cynicism. Zinn views the Bill of Rights, universal suffrage, affirmative action and collective bargaining not as fundamental (albeit imperfect) extensions of freedom, but as tactical concessions by monied elites to defuse and contain more revolutionary impulses; voting, in fact, is but the most insidious of the "controls." It's too bad that Zinn dismisses two centuries of talk about "patriotism, democracy, national interest" as mere "slogans" and "pretense," because the history he recounts is in large part the effort of downtrodden people to claim these ideals for their own.

To that I would add only this, from Zinn's must-read tome. It's from a speech given by Henry MacNeal Turner. After living as a slave for fifteen years, he taught himself to read and write, then both medicine and law, before joining the first post Civil War legislature in Georgia. When, in 1868, all the Negroes were pogrom'd out of Congress (two senators and twenty-five representatives), he gave the following (GREATLY excerpted speech): I am here to demand my rights, and to hurl thunderbolts at the men who would dare to cross the threshold of my manhood... [various, blood-curling but precise imprecations against white racism], Do we ask for compensation for the sweat our fathers bore for you—for the tears you have caused, and the hearts you have broken, and the lives you have curtailed, andt he blood you have spilled? Do we ask retaliation? We ask it not. We are willing to let the dead past bury its dead; but we ask your now for our RIGHTS...

If recently freed slaves could look to the future, Pres. Homeboy should feel fully entitled to do just the same. Obama will have to play the unreconstructed on both sides to the left and speak to the vast middle of America that wants to do the right thing.

Er, as soon as we figure out what that is.

Posted by Debra Dickerson on 11/07/08 at 10:57 AM | | Comments (0) | E-mail | Print | Digg | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Yahoo MyWeb | StumbleUpon | Newsvine | Netscape | Google |

A Note from Africa 450 Years in the Making

From Kuwait to Kenya, Barack Obama's win Tuesday ignited global celebrations the likes of which we've never seen. And on the African continent, well beyond Obama's father's homeland, where crises dwarf what we are dealing with in our Great Recession, the sense of pride is humbling. The following is a note from a friend of a filmmaker friend who is a Zimbabwean living in South Africa. I thought it worth sharing:

Comrades, Friends and Citizens of the World...

Let today, November 5 2008, be a day to remember. A day in which a people was finally allowed to sit at the world table with no shame, no self hate, and no fear. A people whose journey to distant shores begun 450 years ago but only now can that people sit down and say:

YES WE CAN.

Today, a country of many skins united under one banner, the banner that if we work our hardest, do our best to be honest, do our best to build and not destroy, to encourage and engage, nothing can stop us.

YES WE CAN.

Today, is the day I Simbarashe Samuel Mabasha saw what Marcus could not, Steve could not, Martin could not, Malcolm could not, I saw a son of Africa and America rise up to take up the baton of the most difficult race in the world.

YES WE CAN.

Today, Comrades and Friends the peoples of the United States of America made a man's dream come true, a family's dream, a country's dream come true and a people's dream come true. YES THEY DID.

YES WE CAN.

Yes we can dream, Yes we can hope, Yes we can make some change.

Comrades and friends, I am happy and emotional, this for me is the culmination of many things to get my people, Black people, to a place in which they are just part of the world without any fear and shame.

For many this is not a colour issue and it is not, but spare a thought for the smallest big race in the world. Black people, who for 450 years have not had much go well for them, today in a small way they see the works of many who died on slave ships and in cotton fields, in mines, in world wars, in civil wars, and in the realms of hope. Today, for a small moment we can just be.

President-Elect Obama has a lot on his hands and he may not do all that we want him to do, but for me he has done a lot, he inspired me dream even bigger, to work even harder for those that can't do it for themselves, to hope even more in our shared humanity. Not much tangible change may come but the change of mindsets may begin now.

I applaud the Americans for resounding defeat of McCain/Palin, I commend McCain for a gracious and humble concession speech, I commend you all for letting your imaginations run wild, for hoping and being scared all in one emotion. For being a part of this wild and wonderful journey forward.

Simbarashe

Now whether the new "leader of the free world" will actually sit down with Mugabe, or live up to the world's litany of expectations, remains to be seen. But for now hope realized is a remarkable thing to witness.

Posted by Elizabeth Gettelman on 11/07/08 at 9:13 AM | | Comments (6) | E-mail | Print | Digg | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Yahoo MyWeb | StumbleUpon | Newsvine | Netscape | Google |

Public School For the Obama Girls, Please?

Dear President-elect Obama,

I'm writing to you as a resident of the District of Columbia, where you'll soon be moving with your two lovely children. I would like to respectfully request that you seriously consider sending your kids to DC public schools—and not a charter school, either, but a full-on traditional neighborhood public school. I realize that you've already taken some flack for ensconcing your daughters in a private institution in Chicago. I don't intend to pile on. I understand that choosing a school is fraught with anxiety and it's the most private of decisions. But you are a public figure, so I think it's fair to ask that you give the public schools a boost of confidence by electing to send your kids to one.

Full disclosure: I send one of my children to public school, and the White House is within the same school boundary as my own home. After 5th grade, my kids would attend the same school as yours. So I have a vested interest in where your kids end up, as any school that lands the president's kids is likely to see a host of improvements. But my self-interest aside, whatever happens with your administration, you could at least leave a lasting impact on hundreds of poor, mostly minority kids languishing in schools that routinely fail to teach them to read simply by sending your kids to public schools.

Bill Clinton greatly disappointed city residents when he and Hillary Clinton opted to send Chelsea to the tony Sidwell Friends School. His argument at the time was that he and Hillary wanted to protect their daughter's privacy, an argument some found disingenuous, given that private schools are crawling with the children of the media elite who rarely, if ever, set foot in DC's crappy public facilities. City residents were immensely disappointed that the leader of the free world did not seize the opportunity to help improve one of the nation's worst school systems, without having to spend a dime.

One of the major problems with the city's schools is that they've been all but abandoned by middle-class parents who can use their political clout to hold schools to higher standards and to demand sufficient resources for them. Right now, DC schools are at a critical turning point. Some middle class families, particularly with very young kids, are starting to come back into the system, which holds great promise for the future of education in the city. But keeping those families—and convincing more to do so—is a major challenge. The arrival of the Obama girls in a DC public school would send a powerful message to other nervous yuppie parents: your kids will be ok here—come join us! Those parents can be a major force for good that, unlike tax cuts, does have a trickle down effect on lots of kids whose parents don't know how to write grant proposals or lobby Congress. And imagine the turnout for PTA meetings should Michelle join!

While the prospect of throwing your kids into the maw of public school is something that can definitely keep you up at night (believe me, I've been there), you should take heart in the fact that you wouldn’t be the first president to do it. Jimmy Carter sent Amy to Stevens Elementary School downtown, and she seemed to emerge unscathed. Stevens was closed this summer and consolidated with Francis Junior High to create the Francis-Stevens Educational Campus, the pre-K through 8th grade facility near Dupont Circle where, technically, your kids would go. There are no school performance test scores available yet for the reconstituted school, but the building was recently rehabbed and now sports a lovely new playground. True, it's a far cry from Sidwell, but it's closer to the White House and, like Sidwell, it has a tennis court. Compared with Sidwell's $28,000 annual tuition (plus $5,000 for aftercare), it's a real bargain, too.

Still, I'd be a hypocrite if I said you should send your kids to Francis when I myself have serious reservations about eventually sending my own kids there. Its junior high predecessor was pretty dreadful; many of its 9th graders looked old enough to vote. So I can see where you might balk at the idea. But Francis isn't your only option. DC actually has a number of very good schools. Thompson Elementary, also not far from the White House, is an up-and-coming school housed in a brand new building and features a Chinese immersion program. The city might even cut you some slack and give you a coveted spot at Oyster Elementary, the award-winning Spanish bilingual school in Woodley Park where schools chancellor Michelle Rhee sends her kids. (Si se puede!)

Rhee, in fact, has said she hopes to persuade you to send your kids to DC public schools. (Please don't respond by making her Secretary of Education, as some rumors have suggested you might do; DC needs her, and she's just getting started.) Her motivation is plainly obvious. She needs the PR. DC schools have such a bad rep that our own mayor, who has made education reform his signature issue, refuses to send his kids to one, so luring in the Obama girls would be an enormous coup.

I'm not asking you to sacrifice your children's education and well being for a good cause. I firmly believe that your kids can receive a perfectly good education in public school here. It takes some work, but it can be done. Besides, private school no more guarantees future success than public school guarantees failure (case in point: Al Gore III, a graduate of the prestigious St. Alban's). Regardless of which public school you pick, your family's mere presence in the building would force the school bureaucracy to rise to the occasion. And think about this: For four—or maybe eight—years, your kids will live inside the White House bubble. What better way to give them a daily reality check than to send them to school with regular folks?

Here's hoping we see you at math night.

UPDATE: At Barack Obama's first press conference as president-elect, Chicago Sun-Times reporter Lynn Sweet asked whether Obama would be sending his children to private or public schools in Washington. He replied that no decision has yet been made and that he and Michelle would be "scouting out schools."

Posted by Stephanie Mencimer on 11/07/08 at 8:55 AM | | Comments (133) | E-mail | Print | Digg | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Yahoo MyWeb | StumbleUpon | Newsvine | Netscape | Google |

The Senate Run-Off in Georgia Is Underway: New Ad Up

In the Saxby Chambliss (R) vs. Jim Martin (D) Senate race in Georgia that Nick wrote about a week ago, the incumbent Chambliss garnered more votes but failed to reach the 50 percent threshold Georgia state law demands for victory. Thus, the state finds itself in a run-off. The third party candidate (a libertarian who took 3 percent) has been eliminated and voters will head to the polls again on December 2.

Martin has released his first ad in the new campaign and, as you can see, it's heavy on Obama:

Josh Marshall's take:

The big question here is whether Martin can successfully remobilize Obama's voters -- note the ad's central emphasis on Obama -- by capitalizing on the Obama honeymoon. Martin could also benefit if Obama's huge win has left conservatives so demoralized that they don't bother coming out next time, thus changing the partisan makeup of the electorate in a state that went 52%-47% for McCain.

But there's more here than trying to generate a second massive black turnout. Martin is also urging Georgia to send a Senator to Washington that will be inside the circles of power. The ad makes it very clear — Democrats will be running Washington. Georgia will be better served with a representative in the majority, as opposed to an increasingly marginalized and disorganized minority.

Posted by Jonathan Stein on 11/07/08 at 7:26 AM | | Comments (1) | E-mail | Print | Digg | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Yahoo MyWeb | StumbleUpon | Newsvine | Netscape | Google |

Obama Meets With New Econ Team — How Populist, How Corporate?

According to Obama's press operation, his new "Transition Economic Advisory Board" includes the following:

- David Bonior (Member House of Representatives 1977-2003)
- Warren Buffett (Chairman and CEO, Berkshire Hathaway)
- Roel Campos (former SEC Commissioner)
- William Daley (Chairman of the Midwest, JP Morgan Chase; Former Secretary, U.S. Dept of Commerce, 1997-2000)
- William Donaldson (Former Chairman of the SEC 2003-2005)
- Roger Ferguson (President and CEO, TIAA-CREF and former Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve)
- Jennifer Granholm (Governor, State of Michigan)
- Anne Mulcahy (Chairman and CEO, Xerox)
- Richard Parsons (Chairman of the Board, Time Warner)
- Penny Pritzker (CEO, Classic Residence by Hyatt)
- Robert Reich (University of Cal, Berkeley; Former Secretary, U.S. Dept of Labor, 1993-1997)
- Robert Rubin (Chairman and Director of the Executive Committee, Citigroup; Former Secretary, U.S. Dept of Treasury, 1995-1999)
- Eric Schmidt (Chairman and CEO, Google)
- Lawrence Summers (Harvard University; Managing Director, D.E. Shaw; Former Secretary, U.S. Dept of Treasury, 1999-2001)
- Laura Tyson (Former Chairman, National Economic Council, 1995-1996; Former Chairman, President’s Council of Economic Advisors, 1993-1995)
- Antonio Villaraigosa (Mayor, City of Los Angeles)
- Paul Volcker (Former Chairman, U.S. Federal Reserve 1979-1987)

Some observations. The list includes a number of corporate types and Clinton-era holdovers. While these folks are undoubtedly smart as can be, they don't really represent the sort of bold and populist economic thinking that some progressives would like to see emerge in this time of financial crisis. It also includes a couple folks (Rubin, Summers) who oversaw the late-Clinton deregulation that got us into this mess.

Economist Dean Baker writes to Mother Jones, "The only remotely populist people on this list are Bonior and Reich. I give Buffet credit for being a smart and mostly honest guy, but populist is probably a bit of a stretch.... This group is pretty heavily Wall Street in my view, which is worse than being just corporate. That's not a surprise, but it is a disappointment."

The list includes four people mentioned in the press as possibilities for Treasury Secretary — Buffet, Summers, Tyson, and Volcker.

Obama will hold his first post-election press conference today at 2:30 pm EST after meeting with his new economic team. He also attends parent-teacher conferences at his daughters’ school in Chicago today.

Update: Just realized — no one from the labor community on the list.

Posted by Jonathan Stein on 11/07/08 at 7:09 AM | | Comments (14) | E-mail | Print | Digg | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Yahoo MyWeb | StumbleUpon | Newsvine | Netscape | Google |

What on Earth Happened in Alaska?

Is something fishy going on in Alaska?

In the state's single House seat, embattled and federally investigated Republican incumbent Don Young was slated to lose 50.4-44.0 (by an average of the polls). Instead, he won 52-44, an Election Day swing of more than 14 points.

In the state's Senate seat, embattled and federally convicted Republican incumbent Ted Stevens was predicted to lose his seat 47.9-43.5 (again, by an average of the polls). Leading Republicans, including the GOP presidential candidate and the Senate Minority Leader, said Stevens should resign. Harry Reid warned that he may be expelled from the Senate if he were to win. Yet, Stevens appears to be leading 48-47 as vote counting concludes. That's a election day swing of 5.5 points, in the face of all expectations.

And then consider this, from the Washington Post:

The final voter turnout numbers won't be available until absentee ballots are counted, which could take at least another week. But this year's total is not expected to eclipse Alaska's 66 percent turnout in 2004 or its 60 percent clip in 2000. (This is especially odd given that Alaska's Board of Elections saw a 12.4 percent hike in turnout for the August primaries, before Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was selected as the Republican Party's vice presidential nominee.)

Alaska returns (without the uncounted absentee and contested ballots) show the McCain-Palin ticket garnering 136,348 votes. In 2004, President Bush got 190,889 votes, a "significant disparity", the Anchorage Press reported. "These numbers only add to the oddity of this election in Alaska; in the run-up to Tuesday, Alaskan voters seemed energized to vote for a ticket with our governor on it, despite the barrage of criticism Palin faced."

Voter turnout was below 2000 and 2004 general election levels and below the 2008 primary level, despite the fact that the state's popular governor was on the ticket. Huh?

I have no grand unified theory of vote manipulation in Alaska. I don't suspect a conspiracy. But I do, like the WaPo, have questions. I hope someone in Alaska will come forward to answer them.

Posted by Jonathan Stein on 11/07/08 at 6:34 AM | | Comments (5) | E-mail | Print | Digg | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Yahoo MyWeb | StumbleUpon | Newsvine | Netscape | Google |

Transition Rumint: Security Posts

As advisors to President-Elect Obama move swiftly into transition mode, speculation on possible appointments is heightened while those under consideration for the jobs have gone quiet. But here are some names I am hearing and reading for national security posts:

James Steinberg, the highly regarded former Clinton-era deputy national security advisor, is being considered for national security advisor. Long time Obama national security advisor Susan Rice, Clinton's former assistant secretary of state for Africa, is being considered for deputy national security advisor, as well as for US ambassador to the UN. Top NSC appointment announcements could come as early as today, and other White House appointments would be announced after that.

For top jobs at State, the short list includes Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Chuck Hagel (R-Neb, ret.), Richard Lugar (R-IN) (all moderate colleagues of Obama and VP-elect Joseph Biden on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee), former Senator Sam Nunn (D-Georgia), former Clinton-era Balkans envoy Richard Holbrooke, and retired Marine Corps General and Mideast envoy James L. Jones, who is likely to get a top job in the administration elsewhere if not at State. Deputy Secretary of State could go to Greg Craig, a former counselor to President Clinton.

At the Defense Department, conventional wisdom has it that the top job is Robert Gates' if he will keep it, at least initially, and that Clinton's well respected former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig could come in as deputy. Other people named as contenders for top Defense Department posts include former Pentagon officials Ashton Carter, a big-think arms control hand who has arm wrestled with Pyongyang and negotiated post-Soviet nuclear issues and now teaches at Harvard, Michele Flournoy and Kurt Campbell, co-founders of the new think tank, the Center for a New American Security, whose ranks are likely to provide additional security brainpower to the new administration, along with security and regional experts and staff from other think tanks, academe, and the Hill. Former Georgia Democratic Senator and Vietnam veteran Max Cleland, a member of the 9/11 commission, is reportedly under consideration to become Secretary of the Army.

Rumored contenders for top intelligence posts include Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), the high-powered former ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, who is also interested in heading the bureaucratically-challenged Department of Homeland Security (see my recent profile), and former top CIA official John Brennan, who has served as an intelligence advisor to Obama. Other intel posts could be filled by this team.

Worth noting that news video of Obama going into his first intelligence briefing yesterday showed him accompanied by Steinberg, former Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta (who has indicated he does not want an administration job), and the Obama campaign's foreign policy advisor Denis McDonough. It's likely that Obama would want to have been accompanied by his would-be national security advisor, presumably Steinberg.

We'll know soon enough, and there are bound to be surprises. But given the stakes of a war-time transition and the signs of new life after the fatigue of covering the late term Bush administration foreign policy, speculation on these posts is hard to resist.

Posted by Laura Rozen on 11/07/08 at 5:57 AM | | Comments (4) | E-mail | Print | Digg | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Yahoo MyWeb | StumbleUpon | Newsvine | Netscape | Google |

November 6, 2008

Reform Groups Call On Obama To Change Campaign Finance Laws

Barack Obama has only been President-elect for 36 hours, but seven major government reform groups are already making demands. In a joint press release Thursday morning, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and US PIRG set out a "government integrity reform" agenda for the next Congress. And the groups are using Obama's own words to convince him to adopt their plans, pointing out that Obama campaigned on a promise to "fix Washington." Fixing Washington, they argue, means fixing campaign finance.

The reform groups are calling on Obama to repair the existing presidential public financing system and create a new public financing regimen for congress. But there's one problem: Obama's campaign is largely responsible for the presidential public financing system's collapse. Obama, who initially promised to "pursue an agreement" to opt in to the public financing system, instead became the first candidate to turn down public financing for the general election. That decision allowed Obama to dramatically outraise and outspend John McCain, his Republican opponent. McCain was limited to $84 million in public financing during the general election campaign, while Obama raised over $150 million in September alone. The day after the election, McCain aides cited Obama's spending advantage as one reason their man lost. But Obama did promise to fix the system. "I am firmly committed to reforming the system as president, so that it's viable in today's campaign climate," he said this summer. The reformers are now pushing Obama to make good on that vow.

"Senator Obama in June and then his campaign again just a few days ago made publicly clear that he is committed to fixing the presidential public financing system," says Fred Wertheimer, the president of Democracy 21. "We believe that Senator Obama will meet the commitment he made."

The reformers want to close finance "loopholes" such as joint fundraising committees and "hybrid ads", split with the national parties, that allow presidential candidates to circumvent contribution limits. They also want to strengthen the Federal Election Commission, and require candidates to disclose the names of "bundlers" who gather large numbers of donations.

Obama has supported campaign finance reform in the past. He was one of the cosponsors of a bill introduced late last year that would have matched small donations at four times their amount. Such a move would encourage candidates to focus on small donors over fat cats. The law also would have required presidential candidates to participate in the public financing system during the primary election for those candidates to be eligible for public general election funds.

Wertheimer says that reformers are not trying to undermine Obama's success with small donors. "The underlying principle here is to build on the phenomenal success Obama had in raising small donations on the internet. We want to put the small donor in the drivers seat for these campaigns," and "shift the whole focus to the small donor" and away from bundlers who can raise hundreds of thousands of dollars in $2,300 donations.

"It's my own view that the extraordinary potential for the internet is the most important long term development for campaign finance that has come out of this election," Wertheimer continues. "Candidates can raise large sums from donations that are not influence seeking, with almost no cost. And it doesn't take [candidates'] time [and] involves citizens in the election." Wertheimer says that updated reform legislation based on the law Obama supported in 2007 will be introduced in the first days of the next Congress.

The reform groups are also calling on Obama to reinforce executive branch ethics rules, close loopholes in public corruption laws, and strengthen their enforcement.

Some Democrats, though, are going to be reluctant to do anything that might cut into the fundraising advantage their candidates had this cycle. Winning political parties often assume that they will always be able to raise more money than the other side. History suggests otherwise. And after all, a promise is a promise.

Photo user from flickr user Jeff Sandquist used under a Creative Commons license.

Posted by Nick Baumann on 11/06/08 at 11:29 AM | | Comments (7) | E-mail | Print | Digg | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Yahoo MyWeb | StumbleUpon | Newsvine | Netscape | Google |

Does John Boehner Have a Point about Rahm Emanuel?

Does Republican Representative John Boehner, the in-the-dumps House minority leader, have a point when he criticizes President-elect Barack Obama for tapping Democratic Representative Rahm Emanuel to be his White House chief of staff? Boehner says:

This is an ironic choice for a President-elect who has promised to change Washington, make politics more civil, and govern from the center.

Boehner misunderstood--or is now, for political gain, misrepresenting--Obama's call for cooperation and productivity in Washington as a vow to govern from the center. The policy proposals Obama presented during the campaign were mostly progressive. Hey, doesn't Boehner remember that Obama was blasted as an anti-American liberal and socialist by Boehner's fellow GOPers? They didn't seem to believe he was going to govern from the center.

Despite the isn't-he-supposed-to-be-a-centrist spin, Boehner is not incorrect in noting that Emanuel is not known as a nonpartisan agent of change in Washington. As the leading fundraiser for Democrats in the House in the 2006 election, Emanuel, a fierce partisan, did do much to change Washington by winning the House back for the Democrats. But he's a walking advertisement for how Washington does business (see here and here)--as is the less-successful Boehner.

By selecting Emanuel as first big appointment, Obama teed up the this-ain't-really-change ball for Boehner. And Boehner whacked it down the fairway. On Friday, Obama is slated to hold a meeting with his top economic advisers. The speculation is that afterward he may have something to say about other appointments. Obama believers ought to hope he doesn't again make it easy for Boehner.

Posted by David Corn on 11/06/08 at 11:22 AM | | Comments (18) | E-mail | Print | Digg | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Yahoo MyWeb | StumbleUpon | Newsvine | Netscape | Google |

Pentagon to Stars and Stripes: Permission to Cover Election Denied

As the national media prepared to cover the historic 2008 election, Stars and Stripes, the Pentagon-funded daily newspaper, was making its own plans to report on the conclusion of the presidential race. As part of its election coverage, the paper planned to dispatch reporters to the common areas of military bases in order to chronicle the scene as the returns rolled on. A Stripes editor, Tom Skeen, advised the Pentagon of the paper's plans beforehand as a matter of "courtesy," but was "flabbergasted" by the response he received from the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs: stand down. “As a matter of long standing policy, DoD personnel are to avoid engaging in activities that could associate the Department with any partisan election,” the paper was told.

In a critical column today, the paper's ombudsman fired back:

What servicemembers say while in uniform can be construed as a position of the DOD, the officials said. No matter that servicemembers, identified by name, rank and location, express themselves regularly in letters to the editor of newspapers, and in blogs. No matter that every DOD restriction placed on uniformed servicemembers with respect to politics speaks explicitly of “official capacity” actions — giving a speech, writing a column, being active in a political event such as a demonstration. No matter that Congress has clearly stated that both Stars and Stripes and “military personnel on the frontiers of freedom” must be protected by the free speech provisions of the First Amendment.

There were other arguments for barring Stripes from this fairly routine election coverage exercise. For one thing, the officials said, commercial media were not being allowed to go on bases to cover election reaction, so Stripes also should not be. This is a recurring argument that ignores the unique position of Stripes — unique not only within the U.S. government but probably within any government in the world. It has been created and is supported within the DOD to provide news and information to troops in a way that no other civilian media want to do or can do. Stripes staffers work from offices on base. They have DOD ID cards. They live and work in many respects as servicemembers themselves do. And there is no small number of active-duty personnel on assignment to Stripes as editors, reporters and photographers.

Ultimately, Stripes' editorial director, Terry Leonard, decided to ignore the order, instructing the paper's reporters to carry on as planned unless they were told to stop, in which case they were to state their objections and leave without incident. And at bases in Japan and South Korea military public affairs officials did indeed intercede, preventing Stripes reporters from interviewing servicemembers. Explaining the unusual interference in the paper's operations, a Pentagon spokesman later said that nothing good could come from covering the military perspective on presidential politics: "It’s nothing but a gateway to trouble for us."

In the end, Stripes reporters were successful in gauging the ground-level reaction of grunts worldwide—and, at press time, the Pentagon had yet to be subsumed into the void of partisan politics.

Among the remarks relayed on Stripes' Twitter feed:

A1C Elias Zavala: "Go Obama. I'm not saying who I voted for, I'm just saying, 'Go him.'"

Pfc. Michael Cunningham: "It's kind of picking the lesser of two evils."

Tech Sgt. (and McCain supporter) Joe Bosacco: "Hopefully I single-handedly saved the world with my absentee ballot."

A1C Andrew Greenwell: "As far as I'm concerned, whoever wins is my commander in chief & I'll do what he says. It really is that simple."

(h/t Romenesko)

Posted by Daniel Schulman on 11/06/08 at 8:21 AM | | Comments (1) | E-mail | Print | Digg | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Yahoo MyWeb | StumbleUpon | Newsvine | Netscape | Google |

I Thought Bob Novak Had Gone Away?

He retired back in August, but for some reason he's back, spinning like always.

Here's what he said in 2004, when asked if Bush's victory over Kerry was a mandate from voters:

"Of course it is. It’s a 3.5 million vote margin."

And here's what he wrote yesterday about Obama's victory over McCain:

"...he neither received a broad mandate from the public nor the needed large congressional majorities."

Of course, Obama is on pace to win by over 7 million votes. He won more electoral votes than Bush in 2004 and will have larger congressional majorities. This is the definition of hackery. Why on earth people continue to publish Novak, especially drawing him out of retirement to do so, is beyond me. Hat tip Think Progress.

Posted by Jonathan Stein on 11/06/08 at 7:15 AM | | Comments (2) | E-mail | Print | Digg | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Yahoo MyWeb | StumbleUpon | Newsvine | Netscape | Google |

Oregon Comes Through: Dems Win Another Senate Seat

Oregon Speaker of the House Jeff Merkley has defeated moderate Republican incumbent Gordon Smith for Oregon's junior Senate seat, bumping the Dems' roster in the Senate to 57. For a rundown on where they are in Georgia, Minnesota, and Alaska, the three races still outstanding, click here. Below, an illustration of what Oregon looks like politically (courtesy of the Oregonian). Can you guess where Portland and Eugene are located?

Posted by Jonathan Stein on 11/06/08 at 7:05 AM | | Comments (6) | E-mail | Print | Digg | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Yahoo MyWeb | StumbleUpon | Newsvine | Netscape | Google |

What's the Number One Thing Needed to Win an Election?

You'd like to think it's something like command of the issues or the ability to inspire, right? Maybe it's just plain old cash. From the Center for Responsive Politics:

Continuing a trend seen election cycle after election cycle, the biggest spender was victorious in 397 of 426 decided House races and 30 of 32 settled Senate races [in 2008]. On Election Day 2006, top spenders won 94 percent of House races and 73 percent of Senate races. In 2004, 98 percent of House seats went to the biggest spender, as did 88 percent of Senate seats.

Of course, cash may be correlative instead of causative. That is, candidates that are better qualified, better on the issues, and better able to inspire voters raise more money than their opponents, and then go on to win.

Posted by Jonathan Stein on 11/06/08 at 6:38 AM | | Comments (3) | E-mail | Print | Digg | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Yahoo MyWeb | StumbleUpon | Newsvine | Netscape | Google |

November 5, 2008

McCain's Foreign Policy Advisor Fired Last Week?

Turns out that McCain campaign top foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann was fired last week. CNN:

Randy Scheunemann, a senior foreign policy adviser to John McCain, was fired from the Arizona senator's campaign last week for what one aide called "trashing" the campaign staff, three senior McCain advisers tell CNN.

One of the aides tells CNN that campaign manager Rick Davis fired Scheunemann after determining that he had been in direct contact with journalists spreading "disinformation" about campaign aides, including Nicolle Wallace and other officials.

"He was positioning himself with Palin at the expense of John McCain's campaign message," said one of the aides.

Senior campaign officials blame Schuenemann specifically for stories about the way Wallace and chief campaign strategist Steve Schmidt mishandled Palin's rollout — stories that the campaign says threw them off message in the critical final weeks of the campaign.

Another aide said McCain personally was "very disappointed by Randy," who worked for McCain for many years in the Senate.

It would have been nice if someone had noticed at the time, and astonishing that the McCain campaign didn't reveal this until now.

Update: This folllow-up report by CNN is even more curious:

In another sign of drama and disarray inside camp McCain, former campaign senior adviser Randy Scheunemann responded late Wednesday to CNN and insisted he was "not fired and never [have] been fired."

In addition, Michael Goldfarb, a McCain press aide and Scheunemann ally, also insisted he was not fired.

However, Goldfarb did concede that Scheunemann's campaign e-mail was cut off, and his blackberry was taken away late Friday. Goldfarb admits that senior McCain aides were mad at Scheunemann, and wanted to fire him, but he insists they stopped short of that, and instead simply turned off his campaign communication.

Goldfarb says Scheunemann was in the office on Saturday. He was, however, noticeably missing on election night when top aides to John McCain and Sarah Palin gathered in Phoenix, Arizona.

So, his campaign email was shut off and his Blackberry was taken away. Does that sound like he was fired in all but name?

Posted by Laura Rozen on 11/05/08 at 6:01 PM | | Comments (1) | E-mail | Print | Digg | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Yahoo MyWeb | StumbleUpon | Newsvine | Netscape | Google |

Palin in 2012? Maybe Not So Much

When we visited a Palin rally in Virginia in October, we were greeted with Palin-mania. In a statement that seemed to represent the feelings of many, one woman said, "I respect John McCain, but I loooove Sarah Palin."

That enthusiasm appears to be confined to pockets of the Republican base, because it sure as heck wasn't found among the electorate at large yesterday. From MSNBC:

NBC-WSJ GOP pollster Neil Newhouse did a post-election survey last night, and here's what he found: Just 12% of those surveyed believed Palin should be the GOP's new leader; instead 29% of voters said Romney, followed by 20% who say Huckabee. Among GOPers, it was Romney 33%, Huckabee 20% and Palin 18%.

Posted by Jonathan Stein on 11/05/08 at 1:26 PM | | Comments (12) | E-mail | Print | Digg | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Yahoo MyWeb | StumbleUpon | Newsvine | Netscape | Google |

Is Rahm Emanuel--Reportedly Obama's New Chief of Staff--an Agent of Change?

The Obama administration is already under way. And a new theme begins for the Obama tale: is he bringing real change to Washington?

The day after Barack Obama's historic and decisive victory, various media outlets are reporting that the president-elect has picked Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) to be his White House chief of staff. Emanuel is one of the more colorful characters in Washington: a sharp-tongued, quick-witted partisan. He was one of the original Clinton warriors--those political operatives who guided Bill Clinton to the White House and then went to work at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He put in five years on the front lines of the Clinton wars--longer than most of his comrades--and then left to make millions of dollars in the private sector. He was elected to the US House of Representatives in 2002 and soon became the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Leading the DCCC, Emanuel was a prolific fundraiser and engineered the 2006 election wins that allowed the Democrats to regain control of the House.

A Washington player he is. Mother Jones profiled him and examined his tough-guy ways in 1993, a few months into his stint at the Clinton White House. When Emanuel left the Clinton White House in October 1998--during the Monica Madness--The Washington Post summed up his years there:

In 1993, Emanuel's brash, punish-your-enemies style aptly reflected a White House in which certitude sometimes outpaced judgment. He lost support internally and, in a move that sources said first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton urged, was fired from his job as political director....

With an imprecise job portfolio, Emanuel took on projects that had the cumulative effect of recasting Clinton with a more centrist image. Some were big, such as helping lead lobbying for the North American Free Trade Agreement. But many Emanuel projects were mocked as small-bore, such as Clinton's pronouncements on school uniforms and trigger locks for guns….

Colleagues make fun of Emanuel's penchant for pushing initiatives on to Clinton's schedule. At the Wednesday [farewell] ceremony, [White House aide Gene] Sperling cracked about a fictitious Emanuel proposal to put trigger locks on water pistols and noted that his friend's typical policy proposals must cost no money and be related to "two obscure tragedies a decade."

….While most of his friends in the original Clinton team from 1992 -- including Sperling, Stephanopoulos and political advisers James Carville and Paul Begala -- are traditional Democrats, Emanuel was a major force prodding Clinton to fashion a "New Democrat" image.

[Erskine] Bowles, who will leave his post [as White House chief of staff] next week, said Emanuel's greatest skill was putting ideas into action. While the bureaucracy wants to study things for 18 months, Bowles said, Emanuel would insist that a proposal be ready for a presidential announcement in 18 days. "He moves the trash," said Bowles, using a favorite Southern phrase.

....Emanuel said he has learned to become more politic in his White House years. Even the first lady became a supporter. Acknowledging that he was too brash for his own good early on, he said that "as influence grows, so should humility."

Emanuel as an agent of change? Maybe not. But maybe an agent of change needs someone who can move the bureaucracy (and the trash) to get change done.

Posted by David Corn on 11/05/08 at 12:24 PM | | Comments (41) | E-mail | Print | Digg | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Yahoo MyWeb | StumbleUpon | Newsvine | Netscape | Google |

Reflections on California's Proposition 8

The United States took away rights yesterday.

It's a stunning thing to acknowledge. On the same day we culminated a civil rights struggle that spans our nation's entire history by electing the first African-American president of the United States, California voters revoked the right of some citizens in their state to marry the people they love, and nullified the bonds of some who already had.

California's Proposition 8 amends the California state constitution to eliminate the right to marry awarded to homosexuals by the California courts in May 2008. Further, it states that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized by the state, likely shredding the marriages that have occurred since the court decision. Prop 8 passed Tuesday by a vote of 52-48, part of a wave of successful anti-gay legislation nationwide.

If you look at the front page of any newspaper today, you'll find heart-warming plaudits for the country about racial healing and America's progress since the civil rights movement. Count me out. Barack Obama won because the Bush Administration hung a 30-pound anchor around the neck of every Republican in the country, because the economy cratered just before the election and his opponent showed no capacity to understand the problem, and because he ran the best campaign in recent memory. You cannot divorce his victory from those facts. Yes, his ascendance to the White House is a wonderful thing for everyone in this country — black, white, or otherwise — who have struggled for rights, and it a wonderful thing for children of all colors, who now know without a doubt that there are no limits on their potential. But Obama's victory is muddied by too many other factors, some small but some quite large, to be taken as a clear sign that we have made substantial progress on the question of tolerance.

Proposition 8 was a question of tolerance, unmuddied. It was a straightforward proposal to a state that likes to think of itself as the most progressive in the Union — do you want to take away civil rights already granted to a minority group? The issues of unemployment, the stock market, gas prices, healthcare — all of which added nuance to the presidential election — were stripped away. It was a test of California's tolerance in a vacuum. And California failed.

The reason why this pains me to such an extent is because I'm from California. The decision violates, violently, the image of my state that I have held with such pride my entire life. California is a wonderful place for a lot of reasons, but foremost among them is the way in which it welcomes people and their lifestyles. The state cherishes its diversity. I've written before, in a defense of a humane immigration policy, that I grew up in Northern California schools that were routinely over half Asian-American. The rest of our community was white, Hispanic, and to a lesser extent, African-American. It was impossible to leave without some vague notion that our lives are brighter for the diversity of people we get to share them with, and that our understanding of the world is richer for all the reflections of it in our day-to-day experience. And, ultimately, one emerges with an even stronger commitment to a future of shared success when the struggles of African-Americans, immigrants, and the gay community are before one's eyes.

And so it is a shock to acknowledge that my vision of California is not shared by the majority of the state's residents. It is particularly ironic, considering how the measure succeeded. Minorities voted for it. Barack Obama's victory is a clear statement that respect is owed to people of all races, because they all have the capacity to excel equally. One would think it is a short step away from understanding that respect is owed to people of all sexual orientations, because they all have the capacity to love equally. And yet, African-Americans voted in favor of Proposition 8 by a huge margin, 70-30. Latinos supported it by a much smaller 53-47. Whites and Asians both voted against by a slim 49-51. These numbers dumbfound me.

But have hope. The other strong predictor of how someone voted on Proposition 8 was age. The 18-29 age demographic voted against it by an overwhelming 61-39 margin. Voters 30-64 voted in favor by about 10 points, and voters over 65 reversed the youngsters' vote, 39-61.

The fact that younger Americans support marriage equality by such vast numbers means that the writing is on the wall. Proposition 8 and what it represents will not stand the test of time. In the coming days it will likely face legal challenges, and a constitutional amendment reversing the decision is possible in the short term. But it is the long term that holds out the real promise of change. Martin Luther King Jr., in a quote that is more relevant today than ever, said the moral arc of the universe bends toward justice. King's statement was never meant to apply exclusively to African-Americans. In applies to every group treated unequally in this country. It is simply the case that for some, that arc bends more slowly.

Proposition 8 is just one hurdle in a race that equality will eventually win. But that does not make its passage any easier to stomach. California now joins the ignominious list of states that have had the opportunity to expand civil rights and decided instead to take them away.

Posted by Jonathan Stein on 11/05/08 at 12:19 PM | | Comments (37) | E-mail | Print | Digg | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Yahoo MyWeb | StumbleUpon | Newsvine | Netscape | Google |

Landslide? The Popular Vote Total, in Historical Context

Was it a landslide? Judge for yourself. Here are 60 years worth of popular vote totals, from most lopsided to least.

+23.2%, Nixon defeats McGovern, 1972
+22.6%, Johnson defeats Goldwater, 1964
+18.2%, Reagan defeats Mondale, 1984
+15.4%, Eisenhower defeats Stevenson, 1956
+10.9%, Eisenhower defeats Stevenson, 1952
+9.7%, Reagan defeats Carter, 1980
+8.5%, Clinton defeats Dole, 1996 (less than 50% to the winner)
+7.8%, Bush I defeats Dukakis, 1988
[+6%, Obama defeats McCain, 2008]
+5.3%, Clinton defeats Bush I, 1992 (less than 50% to the winner)
+4.5%, Truman defeats Dewey, 1948 (less than 50% to the winner)
+2.4%, Bush II defeats Kerry, 2004
+2.1%, Carter defeats Ford, 1976
+0.7%, Nixon defeats Humphrey, 1968 (less than 50% to the winner)
-0.5%, Bush II defeats Gore, 2000 (less than 50% to the "winner")
+0.1%, Kennedy defeats Nixon, 1960 (less than 50% to the winner)

Posted by Jonathan Stein on 11/05/08 at 9:36 AM | | Comments (9) | E-mail | Print | Digg | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Yahoo MyWeb | StumbleUpon | Newsvine | Netscape | Google |

Anti-Gay Measures Victorious Nationwide

While California's Prop 8 may be the most crushing blow to gay rights if it holds, it's certainly not the movement's only setback. An initiative that will bar gay couples from adopting passed in Arkansas, a gay marriage ban passed in Florida (bigtime, 62%-38%), and a "marriage amendment" passed in Arizona.

While "change has come to America" in some huge ways, equality was not a hands-down winner yesterday.

Posted by Elizabeth Gettelman on 11/05/08 at 9:00 AM | | Comments (35) | E-mail | Print | Digg | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Yahoo MyWeb | StumbleUpon | Newsvine |