So I've just discovered Fundrace 2008 -- want to have some fun? Plug in some addresses, names, zip codes, or employers and see which candidates people are contributing to.

Georgetown employees, it seems, have donated $3300 to Democrats but absolutely nothing to Republicans. People identifying as "students" across the country have given nearly $2,400,000 to Democrats and less than half that to Republicans. (Oh, higher education, the realm of liberalism...)

Yes, slightly voyeuristic, but hey, it's public knowledge.

So who is getting money from the celebrities you're interested in?

read more...

It is no secret that Rudy Giuliani is relying heavily on his record as the former mayor of the United States's largest city on the campaign trail: he has cut crime, cut spending, cut red tape, increased economic growth through the magic of supply-side economics, etc. What is shameful is that many of the numbers he has been touting are greatly exaggerated.

Giuliani, for instance, is fond of taking credit for the decrease in crime in New York City under his administration, but statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice indicate that the violent crime rate peaked in 1990 -- and Giuliani was not sworn into office until four years later. In a recent radio ad attempting to prove that the American health care system is superior to government-run "socialized medicine," he compares U.S. and British prostate cancer survival rates (82 and 44 percent, respectively). The source of the data used to create this statistic, however, says that the numbers were misused: the actual five-year survival rate in Britain is much higher (74 percent). Giuliani's claim to have generated a multibillion-dollar surplus by the end of his mayoral career is also false. In the final fiscal year of his administration, government expenditures exceeded revenues, and the surplus was almost entirely used up in balancing the budget.

I suppose, then, that if your accomplishments aren't good enough, you can always make them up.

read more...

I just caught up on my wingnut television for the week. I found it entertaining enough. If you thought the Democrats were getting tough on each other check out this exchange:



While I sort of enjoy watching the Republicans alienate one of the fastest growing demographics in the country its also appalling that Republicans are bragging about not giving children money for tuition. Giuliani's tactic is interesting. Basically he's denying that New York was a sanctuary city and then justifies the City's "three exceptions". But his three exceptions are basically the components of what define a sanctuary city. I suppose that means the Giuliani camp thinks Republican voters oppose things called "sanctuary cities" but don't really know what the term means. And hey, he might be right. I'm sort of confused about the framing, though. My sense is that the term 'sanctuary' was first used by cities and immigrant rights activists. And it seems like it should be a positive frame. Sanctuaries generally connote nice, happy, places right? Like this:




But nearly every use of the term I've seen has been from conservatives. Are we gaming them or is there a better frame? I sort of like "solidarity cities".

While I sort of enjoy watching the Republicans alienate one of the fastest growing demographics in the country its also appalling that Republicans are bragging about not giving children money for tuition. Which brings me to Huckabee who *gasp* supports letting the children of immigrants have the same chance at winning a merit based scholarship as their peers.



If this had been a general election debate I could say Huckabee just school Romney here. They guy is going to win Iowa and that will probably be how Romney falls apart. I'm ambivalent about whether a Huckabee nomination would be a good thing. On the one hand, Huckabee is definitely the best Republican on domestic spending issues. The guy raised taxes so he could increase state spending by 65%- on things like health care, education and roads. The Club for Growth hates him. I mean really really hates him. Which makes me want to love him.

Unfortunately he also likes to tell women what they can do what they're bodies, tell gay people they can't get married, tell straight people they can't get unmarried, and doesn't believe in evolution. But the real reason I'm worried about a Huckabee nomination is that I think he could win. Truly, he has more political talent than any other Republican running for President. He's like Bush in 2000 except he's articulate and a real southerner. Here's more. Try to get past Tancredo's overwhelming awkwardness at the end:



Really though Mike, choosing the death penalty wasn't the only irrevocable decision you made.

read more...

It’s basketball season, which means that our campus is once again bleeding Hoya blue. Excitement ran high after we crushed Michigan 74-52 at our last home game. But while everyone else was screaming the fight song, a friend of mine was having a nationality crisis.

She is the quintessential international Hoya—half French, half Filipino, she was born in Venezuela and raised in Singapore. (And yes, she’s in the SFS). Which explains why she might not know all of the words to our national anthem. And sure, she wasn’t wild about placing her hand over her heart and staring at the American flag, waving high above our heads in the stadium rafters. What America had to do with basketball, she wasn’t sure, though she was willing to play along. But the climax of the anthem inspired in her a profound sense of isolation, as she stood surrounded by her apparently reverent American peers. It prompted a question I stumbled over, whose answer seemed at once obvious and uncomfortable. She asked me why Americans cheer at the words “the land of the free.”

It’s true—every time I’ve heard the Star Spangled Banner, the applause is loudest at our anthem’s natural climax, the word “free” striking the song’s highest note. Nowadays, the anthem is linked to the stadium crowd, to hot-dog-and-popcorn-toting fans clutching extra-large slurpees to their chests as they murmur along with the celebrity vocalist du jour. “The land of the free” is a phrase both sets of fans in the stadium can agree on; it may be the only time during the game that the two sides are cheering for the same reason. Watching my bewildered friend describe our reaction as the “American swagger,” I couldn’t help but think of the political visions for America in 2008. For me, it begs the question, which side of the political spectrum is really fighting for the land of the free?

Americans are divided on more issues than Congress can legislate in a decade. So, too, are they divided on what freedom means for America. Democrats and Republicans alike cheer along with the stadium fans when talking about America as a free nation. But the Land of the Free is a big claim to make—and a liberal opinion of our country is not without its share of censure. Truthfully, many aspects of America are not all that free. Antiquated laws prevent certain marriages on no justifiable basis, and many poor children still receive little or no medical care. And while conservatives are all vying for the best way to defend our country from an elusive enemy, a Democratic administration will be faced with the weighty task of correcting the fractured image of America abroad. A Republican administration, on the other hand, seems to envision freedom from taxes, gun control, and atheists. Many of the issues dividing the parties boil down to various “freedoms from” and “freedoms to”—gay marriage, border control, abortion, the War on Terror, tax reform, the 2nd amendment, and civil rights, to name a few. Though the Republicans are heralded as the patriot’s party, conservative campaign slogans such as Tancredo’s “It’s your culture: fight for it!” seem to fly in the face of any logical understanding of freedom.

As a liberal, I do my fair share of critiquing the current government. But I am proud to be an American, and I am proud to stand with my hand over my heart and sing our national anthem. Yet I am not fully confident when our collective voices reach that highest note. The land of the free is a vision for the future, it is about hope and about progress. A successful Democratic administration must not compromise our freedoms for power’s sake. But just like that old joke, maybe that’s why Francis Scott Key put “freedom” such a high note—because it’s so hard to reach.

read more...

The pro-life / pro-choice debate has long been a point of contention within American partisan politics. Simply put, democrats are pro-choice, republicans are pro-life, and the public votes along these lines. But this oversimplification is being tested now that a pro-choice Republican is running for president—and now stands as the Republican frontrunner.

Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, only two U.S. presidents have been Democrats, and nearly all of the Republican presidents have been pro-life. Furthermore, Republican administrations are responsible for 12 of the past 14 Supreme Court nominations. The issue was tested again in 1992 regarding the Casey v. Planned Parenthood decision, which overruled five provisions for abortions in the state of Pennsylvania. Abortion remains legal, despite the supremacy of pro-life administrations. But the debate persists as a key component of any candidate’s platform.

On Wednesday, Fred Thompson was officially endorsed for president by the National Right to Life Committee, the nation’s largest anti-abortion organization. He was touted as “the best candidate to beat Giuliani.” But does this matter? The coming election might test just how powerful a constituency the religious right is. The question remains, does the religious right have enough power to swing the entire primary in a more conservative direction?

A Giuliani nomination—horrifying as that may be—will stand out as a landmark for the Republican Party. Whether the religious right will endorse a third party candidate and (foolishly) split the Republican vote (handing victory to the Democrats) remains to be seen. But should they follow the Republican Party in supporting Giuliani, this might be an indicator that the religious reigns on American conservatives are loosening- or, if nothing else, that the pro-life debate is losing its sway.

read more...

This weekend Nomadic Theatre is putting on "The Exonerated", about the experiences of six people who were wrongfully convicted but still lost years of their lives on death row.*

Our justice system, though, is systemically unjust. It is racist, ineffective at deterring crime, often erroneous, and extremely expensive.

And yet... almost all our Democratic candidates -- including every single frontrunner -- support the death penalty. Clinton is a long-time advocate. Edwards believes "some crimes deserve the ultimate penalty". Obama, for all he is touted as a religious and moral man, and for all he believes that the death penalty "does little to deter crime", still would execute prisoners.

Perhaps I shouldn't be so surprised, but Kucinich is in the only one on the field who vocalizes what I am convinced is the only appropriate approach. "Morally," he writes, "I simply do not believe that we as human beings have the right to 'play God' and take a human life – especially since our human judgments are fallible and often wrong." Along with him comes Gravel, who has been silent on capital punishment so far in this campaign but was opposed at least back in 1972, when his book Citizen Power came out.

I'm dismayed that once again, it's only the "crazy" and "ridiculously unelectable" candidates who are talking sense. (It reminds me incredibly of that debate where it was only these two who would lower the drinking age so that young people who are called to die for our country could also buy a beer. Yeah.)

Why is that? I think Liliana Segura has it pegged: "They know that as long as no one holds them accountable, it is a political stance that costs them nothing. It’s their “soft on crime” trump card." Kucinich (and to some extent Gravel) can say these things only because he isn't considered a real candidate.

Cynical? Yes. Unfortunately, it also rings true. How crazy is Kucinich really?

*It was a wonderful performance, and one that I suggest you all look into attending before the show ends this weekend.

read more...

Congratulations to Vice President Al Gore on being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize earlier today. According to the committee who awarded Gore with the prize, he "is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted" to battle climate change.

Gore has promised to donate his monetary prize to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan non-profit organization that is devoted to changing public opinion in the U.S. and around the world about the urgency of solving the climate crisis.

One story that is likely going to be rehashed now that Gore has won this award is whether or not he will reconsider a bid for the US Presidency. The DraftGore movement, based out of San Francisco where Gore lives part-time, has reenergized lately. They've collected almost 200,000 supporter signatures, and, last week, ran an ad in the NYTimes urging Gore to make another run for office.

In the past, Gore has been somewhat evasive in answering the question, saying that he did not see himself running for President, but refusing to rule out the possibility. Now that the spotlight is on him, we'll see if that promise stands.

Again, kudos Vice President Gore, an award well deserved.

read more...

In an early morning email from campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle, the Clinton campaign (FINALLY) announced that it raised an astounding $27 million in the third quarter-- $22 million of which can be spent during the primary, and almost $10 million more than she had been rumored to have raised.

By bringing in such a large haul and out-raising Obama's camp for the first time, the Clinton campaign might just have solidified its already-apparent front-runner status.

Before we (and by we, I mean me) start celebrating, however, I think it's important to look at these numbers in context. First, and Chris Cillizza also pointed this out over at The Fix, $22 million is not "substantially" more than $19 million, especially when you consider that so far this year, Clinton's primary fundraising still lags behind Obama's by several million dollars.

If anything, Clinton's fundraising this quarter (along with Obama's) shows that this race has all but eliminated the other candidates from the running. The two campaigns are going to be running smart, disciplined, and expensive campaigns in the early states that the other campaigns have no hope of matching.

Beyond that, however, I don't know how significant this victory is. Very few people outside of Washington will notice these process stories (and ever fewer will care if they do). But for someone on the side that I'm on, it's nice to be on top for once.

And sidenote-- the "personal" note from Hillary included in the email? The Fix says it's a nice touch... I'm not so sure. I think I'm leaning towards annoying, condescending touch. Thoughts?

read more...

The AFL-CIO debate last night with 6 of the Democratic contenders for 2008 might be best summed up by the Chicago Sun-Times - "The winner last night was Big Labor" - but, in this debate, there were many honorable mentions.

This decade opened with 9/11, continued with Hurricane Katrina, and is now ending with awful heat waves, mines collapsing, and bridges crumbling. Instead of divisive issues like gay marriage and abortion, the Democrats last night got to finally talk about things that matter to working people everyday.

From Kucinich's passionate lines about NATO and the WTO to the disabled man, with tears in his eyes, asking "What's wrong with America and what will you to do to change it?" to Hillary's "I'm your girl." - this was a debate for everyone with the voices of average Americans being heard.

It's easy to be pessimistic after such a great debate; it's easy to see the father whose daughter had to buy part of her soldier's uniform in Iraq and the woman whose husband had died in the mine in West Virginia last year and think about the many obstacles the next administration has. But, this debate made me optimistic. These trials had truly made these, and all, Americans ready for something more. They were ready to ask the tough questions, while putting themselves on the line on national television, and this gives me hope that one of those Democrats onstage can help to start bringing this country back in the right direction.

Basically, if you didn't see the debate last night (and who thought they wanted to watch another in the long series?), you really should YouTube it/watch as many clips as possible/read some live-blogging. This very real debate was a refreshing break from the campaign non-realities we all get so caught up in.

read more...

Newflash: A new study from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research "shows young people [are] profoundly alienated from the Republican Party and poised to deliver a significant majority to the Democratic nominee for President in 2008." The polling also notes that "Young people react with hostility to the Republicans on almost every measure and Republicans and younger voters disagree on almost every major issue of the day."

This isn't exactly a shock-- young voters aged 18-29 were the only age segment to favor John Kerry over George Bush in 2004-- but the survey proves what most of us already know: That the mistaken and short-sighted policies of this administration are screwing the next generation, and we're not going to take it in 2008.

Never underestimating the talent of Republicans for seeing only what they want to see, National Review contributor (and former Bush speechwriter) David Frum manages to find the silver lining in the study, noting that "White young people continue to favor Republicans by a thin but real margin of 2 points" and somehow blaming the whole thing on... immigration?

Republicans truly have their own reality. You'll have to read it for yourself to believe.

read more...

Dean Judy Feder of the Public Policy Institute announced at the start of June that she would again seek Virginia's 10th District Congressional seat. Upperclassmen may remember Ms. Feder when she spoke about healthcare policy with former Senator Daschle in White-Gravenor in the spring of 2006. She is a strong, spirited woman with great ideas on health policy and I'm very glad she trying again!


In the fall of 2006 the College Dems did some campaigning in NoVa, mainly for both Judy Feder and Senator Jim Webb. My greatest memory from this coordinated campaign work was the amount of people who did not realize Rep. Frank Wolf had any opponent. Rep. Wolf is in his 14th term and had never really had much opposition, so many just assumed they had no choice.

Take into account that Cook puts VA-10 at R+5, a 26-year incumbent with enormous name recognition (as well as having been in the majority for a while so he could tout the pork he brought back), and her mere 10-month race (as well as the DCCC's late arrival) and Feder's 41% doesn't seem so bad.

Feder has already filed the paperwork and begun raising money. In fact, she raised about $110,000 in the first month of her campaign, not bad! Her name recognition is up, as are gas prices, discontent with the war, and continuing disgust with the Republican party. 2008 just might be the year for her, so keep your eye on this hard-working member of the Hoya family!

read more...

I highly encourage everyone to read this, an excerpt from Al Gore's new book. I was in the Senate gallery just before the Iraq invasion; I heard Robert Byrd's speech, and the questions that the former VP raises in this excerpt are ones I've been asking since then.

I know a Gore run is unlikely. Reading this, though...I can't help but hope for one.

read more...

Senator John Sidney McCain III is still running for president.

Seriously, this is getting out of hand. I've ranted before about the insanity (inanity?) of these repeated announcements, but this is at least his third.

He has had his exploratory announcement, his Letterman announcement, and his bus tour. Now he is "officially" announcing.

This is certainly just an attempt to recapture some of that "lightning in a bottle" that he had in 2000. McCain's campaign is struggling - granted, this is at least partially due to overly-high expectations: he has been the perceived front-runner for a long time, so any stumble can hurt him. However, he has been outraised by both Giuliani (who was married to his second cousin for 14 years) and Mitt Romney (governor of that bastion of traditional conservatism, Massachusetts). Giuliani also leads in virtually every national poll.

Perhaps spending the last four years demonstrating just how blatantly opportunistic a politician can be has hurt him. Oh well. Announce all you want, but people still won't forget this.

Oh, and this just in:
Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

read more...

You rarely see the name “Hillary Clinton” without the phrase “frontrunner for the 2008 Democratic nomination” surgically attached to it, and for good reason.

Or so it would seem, anyway.

Sen. Clinton certainly makes a good case for a possible presidential run. Supporters (and not a few detractors) point to two main talking points as to why the senator is the prohibitive favorite to win the nom: 1) Name recognition (undeniable) and 2) An insurmountable fundraising advantage (ditto). As if to prove it, Sen. Clinton spent a record $36 million to ensure a “blowout” reelection victory over her Republican opponent in New York. The money helped Sen. Clinton win by over 30 points—and also made the junior senator from New York the biggest campaign spender this cycle. (The #2 spender? Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who spent $24 mil to get his butt handed to him by Bob Casey.)

I want to direct you to a recent New York Times article on the subject. Since Sen. Clinton took office in 2001, she has spent at least 36 million smackaroos on her reelection, which she won with 67%. In contrast, her colleague Chuck Schumer spent less than half that—about $15.5 million—to get reelected in 2004, and won with 71% of the vote, four points more than Hillary did this year. Sen. Clinton also won a smaller percentage of the vote in New York this year than did Gov.-elect Eliot Spitzer, who won 69% in his successful campaign.

Sen. Clinton’s reckless spending has left more than a few Dems a little PO’d. Clinton spent heavily in an effort to win in a blowout that would showcase her nationwide as a candidate who can appeal do independents and Republicans as well as true blue Dems, setting her up for a White House run. But the strategy may have backfired on the good senator.

Netroots bloggers are criticizing Sen. Clinton of “blowing” an appalling $36 million to win what was always a shoo-in campaign, and many longtime supporters and fundraisers are criticizing campaign aides for a “lack of discipline” in spending.

All of this broohaha blows huge holes through the pro-Hillary arguments longtime advisors like James Carville and Mark Penn have been making in private and in the press for the past year and a half. One—that Hillary isn’t as divisive as she is stereotyped, and could win a large segment of moderates and independents—is immediately cast into doubt by the huge amount of money she spent in New York this cycle to create her landslide victory. It was smart strategy; Among other things, her 2006 reelection campaign created a convenient excuse to keep Hillary in New York and out of early primary and caucus states like Iowa and New Hampshire, continuing the aura of mystery that has surrounded Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 intentions for some time. (Don’t worry about her primary prospects too much, though—Bill was out there instead, doing more than a big of glad-handing in Cedar Rapids and Manchester—a worthy surrogate to be sure.) But the result—spending an absurd amount of money that could have been spent in battleground states like Tennessee—may come ‘round later to kick good ol’ Hil in the butt, should she ultimately decide to run.

But the other consequence of Sen. Clinton’s heavy-handed spending habits may be more problematic in the short term. One of Sen. Clinton’s strongest advantages among the field of possible Democratic contenders is her unsurpassed ability to fundraise and tap donor databases worth millions more than any other candidate. But Hil’s spending—which included $27,000 for valet parking and $13,000 worth of flowers—left her with a much-depleted war chest. As of mid-October (the last time her campaign filed a disclosure with the FEC), she had about $14 million CoH, far less than the $20-30 million her advisers predicted she’d have post-election. This puts the esteemed senator in the same ballpark as fellow '08 hopefuls John Kerry ($13.8 million as of 9/30) and Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana ($10.6 million).

Whether her 2006 spending will become an issue in the '08 primaries is certainly a big question (it's easy to forget that the Iowa caucuses are actually more than a year away), but it certainly warrants asking the question we've all been thinking anyway: How electable is Hillary Clinton?

read more...