Friday Roundup: Casinos, Scoops and More

• The Globe finally got around to talking about Diane Patrick's connections to the casino industry, something I brought up on December 24, 2007. When do I get my own column?
• Seriously, though, while I'm not going to automatically expect Patrick to be supportive of casinos because his wife works for the nation's most influential law firm dealing with casinos - I do think the Governor ought to be upfront and frank with that conflict of interest.
• I say that as someone who has been and is very supportive of his administration. This casino issue is a serious drag on his base, though, and I hope it stops soon - because we have an election to worry about in two years and need the base strong. Plus, we've been successful in other areas and should focus on them for now, until the job is done (Municipal Partnership Act, education, biotech bill, etc.).
• Speaking about up front and frank, I had a down-right irate Lynne on the phone today, not very happy with what we'll politely call "distortions" on casinos (emphasis mine):

  The governor also prodded his fellow Democrats who control the Legislature,
  saying delays in acting on the bill will not forestall the inevitable arrival of casino gambling on Indian tribal lands but may prevent the state from implementing the controls and deriving the tax benefits outlined in his legislation.

• Ignoring all the legal reasons why the Governor is wrong here (federal law, for one), I'm hoping this basic point can resonate with the public: if casinos were that damn inevitable, wouldn't they already be here by now? Seriously, since they're not, there's got to be a reason why. There have been federally-recognized tribes here for years now, yet no casinos. That's not a coincidence.
• Here is a local campaign we need to rally around. Donate time, donate money and donate energy to this thing, because State Senator Brown has got to go - he's literally one of the worst on Beacon Hill.

Update: Dan Kennedy's linked to me with an interesting look at the Patrick-Ropes and Gray connection.

Tuesday, March 4th: Transgender Rights Hearing

Here's an essential public hearing everyone should know about in terms of making sure Massachusetts is a state that truly stands for civil rights for all.

Transgender rights activists are preparing to state their case for legislation that would protect transgender people from discrimination and hate crimes as a bill moves through the State House.

The bill, scheduled for public hearing March 4, follows the model of 13 other states that have legislation specifically protecting the civil rights and safety of transsexuals, said Daniel Glasser, aide to Rep. Carl Sciortino, a Medford Democrat who sponsored the bill.

The transgender rights bill is the first piece of statewide legislation to address transgender rights, though some Massachusetts towns and counties have ratified similar anti-discrimination laws, Glasser said.

Rep. Byron Rushing, who introduced the bill with Sciortino in Jan. 2007, said it is important for Massachusetts to explicitly include transgender people in the state's anti-discrimination laws.

"Transgender people represent a category of people who have been discriminated against, but are not always covered by the existing discrimination laws," he said. "This bill is a way to make sure Massachusetts maintains its record of consistently protecting people who are victims of discrimination."

Unfortunately, since the election I'm working on is actually on Tuesday, I won't be able to attend this - but it's imperative the bill passes, so I urge everyone to a) call their state reps and senators and b) if you can, show up to the hearing, which is public and likely open for public comment. Mass Resistance and their folks will very likely be at this event, so it's important that we show a strong show of force so our elected leaders know this is an issue that Massachusetts citizens care about deeply. It's very important that, in Massachusetts, no one is left behind.

Tee Hee... McCain's done!

He wasn't born in America. So, unless we have the quickest organized Constitutional Amendment ever, poor, 'ol McCain seems cooked to me.

"No person except a natural born Citizen... shall be eligible to the Office of President." Oopsie! I actually remember this tidbit coming up in my Con Law class back in the day, when I was pretty outraged that someone born in an American base overseas wouldn't be eligible to become President. I even think it's ridiculous that someone who's lived here for 15-20 years couldn't run either - but such is this country's highest law.

More Reasons to Vote for Obama

He says things to his supporters that he privately says he's not actually going to do. To his supporters: let's fix NAFTA. To the Canadian Government: don't worry, this is only campaign rhetoric. Ouch!

More than a few incidents

Some people say hate crime laws can't be effective because it's really only people who are mentally imbalanced that commit the most heinous hate crimes, and obviously you can't stop them. Well, maybe we need to broaden our horizons.

Two ugly attacks on gay men, one fatal, have occurred in Fort Lauderdale in the last week.

Melbourne Brunner, the man I posted about yesterday who was brutally beaten after a late night meal outside a gay-friendly diner on Fort Lauderdale's Las Olas Blvd, thinks homophobic Mayor Jim Naugle bears some of the responsibility.

Naugle has been publicly demonizing gays for months. In July, Naugle proposed installing a timed, $250,000 robotic toilet in Fort Lauderdale public restrooms. Naugle, who claims he uses the word "homosexuals" to describe gay men rather than "gay" because gay people "are unhappy," has said that an added plus to having the toilets is that they would keep gay people from using the facilities. Last August, Naugle stood with right-wing religious leaders and held a news conference where the Rev. O'Neal Dozier said "We want the homosexual community to know that we love them and that God loves them also. But God hates the act of homosexuality."

Should it be any surprise that a city who's mayor has received national attention for his blatant homophobia, encouraging it in city policy, would also be a city where there's a hate-crimes eruption against glbt people? It's not a surprise at all: the hatred bubbling at the surface finally spilled over, with all the people riled up by a community disparaging gay people. Maybe we can't stop all murders from people who are unhinged, but there are certainly thousands of other hate crimes that happen every year that could be stopped - people who are beaten up and bullied for being gay, people who have their property targeted and vandalized and, yes, even people who are murdered for being gay, such as when an act of bullying goes wrong.

These are all crimes that are meant to target an entire community. A hate crimes law could help reduce all of them, as it has in the past for other minority and targeted communities that enjoy hate crimes protection. No minority or community should be targeted for a crime simply because they're a member of that community, and when it happens, those who commit the crime need to serve a time that's reflective of the fear they tried to instill on the entire community that they targeted.

Clinton, Obama on Lawrence King's Death

I have to say that few things have really pulled at me like Lawrence King's death. It seems like every time I think society's making great progress and is nearly ready to fully accept glbt people, some innocent kid or teen gets murdered for being gay. King should be a rallying cry for the country to pass the Matthew Shepard law, but the Republicans seem content to let more Lawrence Kings pass on. In any event, I'm glad the Obama and Clinton campaigns have finally weighed in, both calling for federal hate crime bills that extend to all glbt people.

Clinton sums it up:

We must finally enact a federal hate crimes law to ensure that gay, lesbian and transgender Americans are protected against violent, bias-motivated crimes. We must send a unified message that hate-based crime will not be tolerated.

This is Not an Objective Review on Casinos

All along, I've been saying we need a thorough, nonpartisan, legislatively-appointed commission to study the impact of casinos in the State. The Governor also promised an "independent" review - and this is what we're getting.

BOSTON — The Patrick administration has hired a New Jersey company to independently evaluate its claims that three resort casinos will bring jobs and money to Massachusetts, drawing criticism from casino foes who say the company has deep ties with the casino industry.

Spectrum Gaming Group LLC, which counts Harrah's Entertainment and Las Vegas Sands Corp. as clients, was awarded a $189,000 contract on Thursday to review the governor's plan. It was the only company that competed for the state contract.

Ridiculous.

Rethinking the Role of Government

Are We Asking the Right Questions?

It's usually a fool's errand to open up a debate on why government exists. It's a subject that will stir all sorts of passions - and not all of them well informed. "Why do we have governments and what purposes do they best serve?" is an inconvenient question to ask, but one that begs an answer. How the bulk of the people answer that question reflects the policies our government chooses to adopt. Of course, many would say, "Government exists to maintain stability in society," and many would still expand the answer to, "provide for protection." But, ultimately, both answers are so vague that they aren't very helpful at all. How does government provide for stability? What is it protecting us from? If people thought about those questions more often, perhaps many of our common problems would simply evaporate.

With those questions in mind, if Government's purpose is to prevent anarchy and be a stabilizing force, is our government actually doing it's job? Part of the answer involves considering how the human mind works. We, as a species, tend to make decisions that solely benefit us first, without thinking too heavily on how our decisions impact others - even if we're kindhearted souls that wouldn't hurt a fly. We buy the car that's most comfortable, if we can afford it, not the one that just gets us to where we need to go without leaving a huge carbon footprint. We vote for the candidates who will slash taxes, instead of voting for the candidate with nuanced positions that would ultimately be more beneficial to us as they better our educational system, support affordable, universal health care and grow the economy.

Ultimately, given how the human mind works, shouldn't part of what government does be in making sure our personal decisions - what's best for us at an individual level - also be decisions that benefit society as a whole? For example, all across the country, there's a movement to buy bigger and better houses further and further away from cities, instead of restoring what we have now and using smart growth to build more housing in better locations for everyone - still beautiful, yet efficient, near public transportation and within close distance to plenty of job opportunities and open space.

Since our country has almost no uniformed development strategy, almost all the development across the country is in the form of building Big on the outskirts of cities, stretching further and further out. Can anyone actually blame individuals who choose to get the biggest bang for their buck, only at the cost of a shortish commute (which is often no longer than using public transportation, anyway)? It's no surprise that we see more and more people commuting for ever-longer stretches with their gas-guzzling, but very comfortable SUVs. They're only too happy to own their brand-new 30,000 square foot McMansion with a dozen automatic sprinklers that turn on three times a day, with a yard and a stellar school system to boot.

Meanwhile, they get the added bonus of not having the burden to think of all the other people they've left behind, or how their decisions impact others. Hey, why should they? That huge McMansion is more house than people could buy in the city, after all - and as for all the kiddies stuck in the sucky schools that they no longer have to deal with, it's not their problem anymore. But, when everyone employs that sort of rational thought, there's a very large and very real toll to society - one that this current generation is only beginning to universally feel. We're creating two Americas, running out of oil and energy and polluting the world at an ever-increasing rate, all because we can't take a step back and think things through. All of these houses and cars, etc. are coming at a huge cost - and we haven't even paid the interest on it yet.

Instead of this nearly non-existent development strategy that's about as organized and well thought out as a Chimp with a crayon, our society could be meeting, discussing and figuring out how to make sure individual decisions are the best decisions at the aggregate level, too. We could be making sure our urban and already-built suburban neighborhoods offer top notch schools, great public transportation and conserve as much energy as possible while affording a comfortable lifestyle (we can have our comfort and eat it too). We could be making sure there's ample affordable housing being developed or redeveloped to keep our talented, young families and individuals in their home states, along with amazing opportunities in public higher ed and better resources to connect people with good jobs. We could be making sure we have more and better parks, with plenty of open space for people and children with an active lifestyle everywhere. We could be addressing the systemic problems that are causing budget gaps year after year, creating solutions that would solve those gaps and actually address the systemic problems we all face. We could be doing all those things, but we're not.

In terms of innovation and solving problems, our government is doing a whole lot of nothing - and few people are standing up and doing anything about it. It's as if the government inaction is so confusing that people have been bewildered and caught off guard for decades. It's perhaps the worst case of Deer-Caught-in-a-Headlight yet. Except, here we are - no solutions in hand, terrible leaders in charge and with few people clamoring for change. Maybe, if people were asking the right questions - contemplating how government can best serve us - we'd cease to be ordinary folk and become the active, engaged citizens who can actually solve these messes. It's a tall order for we, the people, who sadly seem to be comprised of more ordinary folk than the type of citizenry who wouldn't let problems slide. The more we have of active citizens, engaged in asking and answering our common questions, the more likely we'll be in addressing our common problems. There's no reason why the Government can't, and shouldn't, be creating incentives for individuals to make the right decisions not only for themselves, but everyone else too. The ultimate question is, do we have the citizen base who can make the demands and be the force for change to make it happen?

Major Casino Conflict of Interest

It seems like every time there's someone who really sticks their neck out to support casinos in Massachusetts, that someone has a serious and major conflict of interest. In that vein, Left in Lowell found a biggie.

The Sun Editor, Jim Campanini, has once again failed to disclose a conflict of interest with regards to his role as editor of the Lowell Sun. Par for the course, I suppose, but this one’s a doozy.... A week ago, an editorial appeared in the Sun (we wrote a rebuttal) telling the legislature to consider Gov. Patrick’s plan for casinos in Massachusetts (saying, “Frankly, we see no way out of the state’s fiscal dilemma without engaging in a serious debate on legalized gambling.”).

Why does the public not know that Mr. Campanini appears to have a major stake in a stable of racers that frequent Suffolk Downs? (We found out thanks to a tip from an alert reader.)

Does that sound like the actions of a disinterested and objective journalist? No. It is, however, just one more example of how this editor is ruining his paper with conflicts of interest, whether it’s in politics and protecting his buddies, or in protecting his stake in horse racing.

Par for the course, indeed.

Know a Twentysomething?

Then I think you should read this. Here's just a brief blurb:

Stop judging the twentysomethings. Instead, look at yourself. Why is it so important for your twentysomething to make choices that you like? In fact, the most successful people in today’s workplace are making choices that would have seemed absurd ten years ago. And things that are true today were not true ten years ago.

And have a heart. It’s not easy to be a twentysomething today. These young people grew up with tons of structure, tons of adults watching over them, tons of accolades. It’s a hard adjustment to go into the adult world where there is none of this. The most successful transitions happen when the person making the change receives time to adjust, space to grow, and support for tough decisions.

Have some patience. Most people find what they want to do with their life by the time they are 30. Really. And they are already putting so much pressure on themselves to find a good life. They don’t need more pressure from you.

I can't describe how many copies of the entire piece I'm thinking of printing up, so I can pass them out to every single person who has "advice" about what I should do with my life, instead of letting me figure it out on my own. It's as if some people think anything but being an Executive Vice President or half way through Harvard Law at the age of 23 is a failure. No thanks.

I'm Running for the Democratic State Committee

Now that the Democratic Party's mailer is out, it's not exactly a big secret that I'm running for one of 5 male GLBT at-large seats on the Democratic State Committee. There are many reasons why I'm running, but chief among them is this: we, as a party, need to be able to get our powerful grassroots movement beyond organizing around particular candidates and into organizing around the common problems Massachusetts citizens face everyday. I feel I am uniquely qualified to bring these kinds of ideas and solutions to the DSC that will be able to make an impact on the all-important policy level.

As a successful state politics blogger and a winning Field Director, I have direct experience at both the communications and field level - two critical elements in enacting the change we need. From my online activism, I've advocated endlessly for glbt rights, the environment and all sorts of other issues that are critical to us all. On my internet radio show, LeftAhead.com, I've had guests such as MassEquality's Marc Solomon and the former Editor of Bay Windows, Susan Ryan-Vollmar, on the show to talk about where Massachusetts needs to go now to continue on our path of civil rights progression, among many other critical subjects. As a Campaign Field Director, implementing grassroots election strategy and running many of the day-to-day operations, I've been successful to the tune of helping win12 out of 15 precincts in Lori Ehrlich's 8^th Essex campaign for State Representative.

I hope to bring my unique experience and fresh perspective to the State Committee to bridge two of the Democratic Party's most powerful tools – the grassroots and the netroots - in a way that will truly make our party blossom on Beacon Hill.

Time Magazine Needs to Apologize!

This article, purportedly about the tragic hate-crime killing of Lawrence King in California, is instead an attack on those who are pushing for gay rights and protections.

Though the organization paints a still overall grim picture for young gays, fully 78% of gay and transgender kids say they feel safe at school, according to a 2005 GLSEN report. According to another GLSEN survey released in 2006, only 18% of gay and transgender students said they had been assaulted in 2005 because of their sexual orientation.

"Only" 1 in 5 glbt students are being assaulted in school, merely for being gay, lesbian or transgender. That's not a problem at all. Clearly, they must deserve it or something.

I'm so angry right now, I don't even know what to do with myself. Gay teens are being murdered merely for being gay and Time magazine wants to defend inaction. Time magazine should be ashamed of itself.

Update:

Time Magazine obviously doesn't think we have a systemic problem regarding hate-crime violence directed toward GLBT people. Well, tell that to Michael Sandy, who was trying to run from his attackers when he was ran over with a car because he was gay. He died. Sean Kennedy just wanted to have a fun night out with his friends, but his attacker didn't like the fact that he was gay - so he punched Kennedy, who's head hit the pavement and separated his brain stem from his brain, killing him. Then there's Ryan Skipper, who was stabbed 20 times and thrown at the side of the road, while his killers stole his bloody car and drove around screaming about how they had killed the "faggot."

Not enough? 3 year old Ronnie Paris was killed by his father, all because his father was trying to "make Ronnie Antonio tough and to teach him to fight, because he did not want Ronnie to grow up to be gay." I'm not done - Phillip Walsted was struck almost twenty times in the head with a baseball bat, Brandon Teena was beaten, raped, stabbed and then finally shot in the head because he was transgender. But don't worry, only 18% of gay, lesbian and transgender students are targeted at school. That's not a problem at all.

Save the Internet/Save the Date

I just got an email for Savetheinternet.com and it's an important one:

Comcast, AT&T and Verzion have given us a glimpse of a world without Net Neutrality, and it's a chilling sight.

In recent months, these cable and phone companies have repeatedly been caught blocking, filtering and spying on your Internet activities. If we let them get away with this, these powerful companies will continue to roll back our freedoms whenever we go online.

Now the Federal Communications Commission is coming to Boston to investigate. Will you attend this important event?

WHAT: A Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet
WHEN: Monday, Feb 25, 2008
TIME: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
WHERE: Harvard Law School, Ames Courtroom, Austin Hall
1515 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138
Directions: http://www.law.harvard.edu/about/contact/directions.php/

More information: www.savetheinternet.com/=boston

Be there or be square.

Solving Fiscal Crisis the Right Way

Very interesting:

The impulse by some state leaders is to slash state spending, but that could be disastrous for the economy if multiple states lay off state workers and cut-off help to those in need just as private spending is falling.

In fact, the right kind of revenue increases may be just what is needed for economic recovery. As Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University, and Peter Orzag, now the director of the Congressional Budget Office, have emphasized, budget cuts during a recession will usually hurt state economies far more than tax increases, since cuts come dollar-for-dollar out of the economy, while tax increases, especially if targeted at the wealthy, often "reduce saving rather than consumption, lessening its impact on the economy in the short run."

Read the whole thing, it's well worth it. Though, noticeably absent from that piece on on how best to deal with a budget shortfall is the creation of casinos. Gee, I wonder why?

Kos, Olbermann, Blogs, MSM... One-Sided Hypocrisy

On the one hand, Kos is willing to wag his fingers at the Clinton campaign for making notice that red states vote red: it's insulting to the voters, he says. Well, maybe it is, even if it's a case of 'the truth hurts.' On the other hand, Kos gives a tip of his cap to laying the ultimate insult to Michigan and Florida voters: stripping them of their votes. Apparently, part of the 50 State Strategy Kos is trying to defend here says that two of our biggest, most important states shouldn't even be able to have a say in the election. What a great strategy! And, let's get real, it's not as if the voters of either of those states had a choice in the fact that their primaries were moved up. So, if it's a big deal that Hillary's peeps think that red state voters aren't quite as important as the voters in states that will actually vote for a Democrat, why isn't Kos and the like demanding Michigan and Florida voters get their say? Talk about hypocrisy.

Then there's the case of Keith Olberman, who I normally love. However, whenever it comes to Hillary Clinton, he's downright foaming at the mouth - despite the fact that, if anything, she's to the left of Barack on the most important domestic policy issues: health care and even energy. The rest of the media follows suit: every little Clinton blip is analyzed for how they're a bunch of awful human beings and don't deserve to be in office. Yet, they ignore the fact that Obama's camp has been equally brutal. Then, when Obama gets caught with his hand in the speech-writers' cookie jar, seemingly the entire MSM rushes to his defense. Can I just say that if I did what Obama did on a college paper, I most definitely would have been given a zero, likely with a very scary meeting scheduled with the dean. But, then again, I don't cheat.

The media coverage of this race has been god-awful and entirely one sided. It's sickening to see the blogosphere join the MSM in these ranks - clearly, some of these blogs are quickly joining the establishment that they so often love to rail against. I hate to throw this out there, but part of me really wonders if the situation would be different if Hillary weren't one of those crazy people who just so happen to lack an extra appendage between their legs. In any event, it would be nice if the blogosphere could get away from the very horse-race type issues that we get so pissed off about when the media covers them. This race ought to be about the issues, instead it's about trivial matters wherever we go for campaign news. Ugh.

Hillary: Fighting With Fire

Now, here's an attack with merit. Of course, kudos for David (and tblade) catching this before the Hillary campaign did. And let's also not forget that plagiarism is a serious issue, one that's cost other candidates the campaign in elections past. People go to speeches expecting them to be original to that candidate, even if they're playing off of common ideas. Just because Obama shares Patrick's chief political message guy, that doesn't give Obama carte blanche to steal whatever catch phrases and speeches he wants from Patrick's campaign (and to do poor versions of them, to boot). If he wants to borrow ideas and phrases, that's great - and he should - but he needs to at least preface it with, "as my good friend, the Governor of Massachusetts, likes to say..."

The Mass Blogging Community and Ryan's Take

Just recently, I had to shut down Ryan's Take for about a week, which - as someone who sees himself as a blogger first and foremost - is about the last thing I ever wanted to do. Being unplugged certainly didn't feel good, but in the end I thought it would be a good time to think of ways to improve and foster a true Massachusetts blogging community. Of course, we've had events in the past, but many of the Mass blog leaders who organized these events have been extraordinarily busy and have sought help, or are no longer active in the community. So, in the week that I didn't blog or even think about blogging, I decided to come up with a few ways to foster a better Mass Lefty Blog community: a community that's more successful in getting its message out and one that can actually deliver a little more muscle.

So, here are the things I've decided are going to happen, even if it damn near kills me:

• Events!! Even if I'm the one doing most of the planning, there's going to be more blogger events. It grows the sense of community, as well as allows all of us to step back and think of ways we can, indeed, be more successful. In person. During election times, we've sponsored candidate forums, raised money and created tangible results in other, meaningful ways - but the question becomes how do we expand beyond that and into the realm of what truly effects us: policy. Elected leaders can't fix policy alone, after all.
  
• Look for the first major event to be in April. I'll have more details when they're finalized. It will be a general meet-up for kicks and giggles, but I also want to discuss some of the ideas above, but bring your own, too.
• In terms of Ryan's Take, I'm creating an email list. Email has been an essential tool, especially during this time off from blogging. I love comments and responding to them, but I especially love personal email and getting to really know the people who read my blog. I've never been a huge fan of email lists, but in some ways an email is one of the best ways to feel a part of the "blogging" community. So I just want to have an organized list of people who actually read my blog, so I can get a sense of who the community is and so I can better alert people to when there is something important going on - like a blogger meet up, or some kind of important announcement. If anyone wants to be a part of this list, either send me an email or a comment... and know that if I use it, it probably won't be more than once a month, because I just prefer personal interaction to anything else.
• I have so many more thoughts on things I'd like to do, both in terms of organizing the community and in terms of my own blog, but they're going to have to wait until after the first big blogger meet up.
  

Ugh

No need to repeat myself. We need more civil rights protections here and across the country, and we need them now.

Obama's Really Pissing Me Off

This kind of nonsense is just that, nonsense. While I don't like the DLC attitude, Bill Clinton did not singularly cause Democrats to lose seats - but he did help balance the budget and preside over a country where nearly every group of people were doing better than they had before. The funny thing is Barack's bipartisan nonsense is almost exactly like the DLC rhetoric that actually did hurt this country, except Barack's brining it to a whole new level. Barack's message and rhetoric doesn't sound like someone who's proud to be a Democrat at all - and this kind of mailing is right in line with that meme.

All in All, a Good Night for Hillary

I'm happy with it. She increased her lead in delegates, has won all of the most important states so far (California, New York and Florida - all by huge margins), and of course she won the best state in the country, Massachusetts. With other wins all over the map and delegate lead, she still has the advantage and momentum in this race.

This contest probably wouldn't be nearly as close right now if the Democratic Party actually valued the votes of Democratic Party Voters - and didn't throw a hissy fit at the Super Delegates who decided amongst themselves to break party rules. If the party did as it should - punishing the Supers instead of the regular voters, who had no control over when primaries would be held, this race may very well be over by now.

The Dangers of Bipartisanship

Jane Hamsher said it better than I could. There's a greater theme here that applies to a certain Purple-America-loving candidate, but I'll give my fingers a vacation.

Anti-Hillary Over Iraq?

One of the arguments I've been hearing for Obama is that, even if he's playing dirty politics and engaging in right wing talking points, Hillary was for Iraq. Obviously that means she doesn't deserve our support. Don't get me wrong, Hillary made a lousy vote and it doesn't reflect well on her for not apologizing for it, but this argument just doesn't make sense. If Obama truly was anti-war, and I don't really give a damn about some speech he made before he ever had to deal with the pressures of being a US Senator who wanted to run for President, he should have actually been a strong, anti-war Senator. Where was this leadership from Senator Obama in the US Senate? If Obama came out strong against Iraq during his tiny tenure in the US Senate, he certainly did it very tentatively. And he certainly didn't come out strong when it mattered - funding the war. His war funding record is almost identical to Hillary's. Am I really supposed to believe that, had he been in the Senate before the war started, he would have been an anti-war champion? I don't think so.

So, in light of that, all I have to do is look at where he stands on progressive issues, as well as standing up to K Street and the Republican hacks who've been ruining our country for the past few decades. It doesn't look good. If it's not propping up right wing talking points, like how Social Security is in dire straights and needs to be fixed now, it's pushing liquid coal - which would be a disaster to our environment. If it's not praising Reagan as the right man for the right time, it's propping up anti-gay preachers in his campaign. He's sending calculated, mixed signals to the public that isn't of the sort a strong progressive would support. Hell, he's managed to get me - someone who never would have voted for a person like Hillary in a millions years - ready to vote for her in a mere 4 days. It took a lot for Obama to accomplish that, but he's worked hard to get me to dislike his candidacy.