Heidi Li's Potpourri

The latest video from The Denver Group/Democrats For Principle Before Party

If you go here, you can watch the video version of the commercial TDG/Democrats For Principle Before Party plans to air, especially in truth squad state MO and other swing states. Consider a donation, even a small one, to help the video get on the air.

The Pelosi-Obama style - not so much the rage at the moment

Yesterday Speaker Nancy Pelosi once again demonstrated her powers of political leadership. For people who were not intensely engaged in the primary season, Speaker Pelosi's methods for consensus building seem to be coming as something of a surprise as does her glaring lack of consistency let alone integrity. (Listen to Speaker Pelosi's speech in support of the legislation it was her job as Speaker to see passed.)

When Speaker Pelosi would like - or even needs - the cooperation who do not share her point of view, what does she do? She insults them. As she has done with Clinton Democrats for months, so she did with House Republicans yesterday.

When Speaker Pelosi finds it convenient to say something true, she does but if it is not convenient, she does not. She, along with her preferred Presidential candidate, Senator Obama, spent the primary season denying the economic success of President Bill Clinton's administration. On the floor of the House yesterday, Speaker Pelosi  repeatedly emphasized President Clinton's success at securing the nation's economic foundations by balancing the budget, a move that brought economic prosperity in the aftermath of President George H.W. Bush's total failure on the economic front.

When Speaker Pelosi finds it expedient to claim that something is good she claims it is good, when she finds it expedient to shift to an inconsistent position she nimbly dodges over. On September 28, Speaker Pelosi said the bill was a wonderful bipartisan achievement made all the better by the measures she pressed for, such as not giving Secretary Paulson $700 billion effective immediately. On September 29, speaking in support of this legislative achievement she made no mention of the provisions in the bill meant to check the Secretary's ability to draw down more than $250 billion at first.

When Speaker Pelosi wants a result she seems to think that all Democrats will simply fall in line behind her. So instead of coming to the floor of the House having done the work necessary to persuade members of her own party to stand with her, she arrived with over 90 of them ready to steer clear of the legislation she had just 24 hours ago been touting as an example of Democratic success in checking Wall Street greed. Similarly, Speaker Pelosi arrived at the Denver Democratic Party presidential nominating convention having spent months insisting that the party was unified around Senator Obama despite the fact that Senator Clinton had won the popular vote and if a free and full roll call vote had been held, with uncoerced superdelegates playing their appropriate role, Senator Clinton might very well have won the nomination on the first ballot. At the convention, aware she did not have the votes, Speaker Pelosi was able to use a combination of delegate intimidation and payments from her PAC to superdelegates to prevent a straightforward voting procedure rather than risk an outcome that was not her first choice. Too bad for Speaker Pelosi that  election tampering is harder to pull during a House floor vote.

If you want years and years of Pelosi-style political "skill" dominating U.S. federal level politics, then you will vote for Barack Obama on November 4. Because if Barack Obama becomes the next president of the United States, Nancy Pelosi will insist upon remaining Speaker of the House. She will based her claim to legitimacy on her support of Barack Obama. No matter how badly she has performed as Speaker of the House - and she has performed stunningly badly - she or somebody she supports will carry on as Speaker.

Furthermore, if Barack Obama becomes the next president he, with help from Nancy Pelosi (and Harry Reid and Howard Dean, some other masterful politicians of our day) will appoint  the next set of DNC leaders. His claim to this prerogative will rest  upon the fact of his winning and the fact that, according to tradition, this is the winner's prerogative. And like Nancy Pelosi, Senator Obama believes in breaking from tradition or acting for real change so long as that benefits him personally; if sticking with the status quo is more advantageous to Senator Obama's own agenda than change is no longer the order of the day.

You can be sure that any DNC leadership appointed by Barack Obama, would be very likely to continue to support candidates  cut from the cloth of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. Senator Clinton will be further marginalized by her own Party; and the Party leaders will carry on efforts to shun President Clinton, the most successful Democratic President in Nancy Pelosi's adult life (the Speaker was 5 years old when Franklin D. Roosevelt died) and Barack Obama's entire life.

No, I do not think John McCain is a wonderful alternative for the next four years. Nor did I think the bailout legislation was good public policy (for what I had to say about that, look here). But I think a Democratic Party dominated by the Pelosi-Obama style is an even worse state of affairs, not just for the next four years but for many years thereafter. If I thought I could reform the Republican Party and make its members understand the need for a total overhaul of how this country handles health care or convince them of the significance of reproductive rights for women and civil liberties for all, then I would actively support the Republican Party. But the prospect of being able to achieve that seems slimmer than even the admittedly daunting challenge of bringing about a total overhaul of the Democratic Party.

For some other good reads about the problems of with the Pelosi-Obama influence on the Party and the country see From The Range at FDR.

The Inaugural Big Ten Battleground Poll

I earned my advanced degrees at a Big Ten university - The University of Michigan. Now the Big Ten continues its great educational tradition by highlighting what is happening in the battleground states of the upper midwest. From the Inaugural report:

The eight states home to the 11 universities in the Big Ten conference were key battlegrounds in the 2004 election, and the results of the poll show that they are among the most competitive in the country and are likely to be pivotal in determining the election outcome.

The surveys show a tight race in all of the Big Ten states except for Obama’s home state of Illinois, where he holds a 16-point lead over McCain. The two candidates are tied in Iowa and Pennsylvania, and Obama has just a one-point lead in Ohio and Wisconsin. McCain is ahead in just one state — Indiana — where he leads by 4 percentage points. [Read more....]

Ed O'Reilly continues to use his voice - the one that gained him a third of the Massachusetts Democratic Primary voters on September 16

This just in from Ed O'Reilly. Not only is it well worth reading, it is well worth contributing to Ed O'Reilly's political future. He's the sort of Democrat who can redeem the Democratic Party. You can contribute to Ed here.

Where There Is Smoke, There Is (still) Fire!

As we begin this week, we have seen Congress working overtime rushing to put together the largest bailout plan in the history of our United States.   Let’s make no mistake what this bailout is all about.  It is all about trickle down economics!  Every Congressional proposal is FOR the financial industry and NOT FOR average American working families and our senior citizens. 

During the campaign, I often talked about the J.P. Morgan takeover of Bear Stearns.  How was it that executives from J.P. Morgan could call the power brokers at the Federal Reserve Bank and within days put together a multi billion dollar deal that gave out a multi million dollar, no bid contract to a company called Black Rock and leave the average American taxpayer holding the risk?  The answer is pure and simple—special interest money in politics.    If an ordinary American has a financial problem, can he/she call the Federal Reserve and get the same kind of access, service and influence?  The answer is clearly and obviously, no. 

 

So, let’s take a look at how this all happens.  There is great disparity in terms of access and influence with Washington decision makers.  During the campaign, I cited my opponent’s campaign kickoff event as an example of how money gains access, and without access, there can be no influence.   Let me be clear here.   I use this as an example to illuminate a problem with the system and not, necessarily, with the person.  The election is over, but the system remains. 

This campaign kickoff dinner had a $1,000 minimum cover charge and $2,300 minimum to have a private reception with an elected U.S. Senator who was elected to serve ALL of the people of Massachusetts.  Who would pay a $1,000 cover charge?  Certainly an average American can not afford to spend this amount of money for dinner.  So, why would a person pay $2,300 for dinner and a reception?  The answer is simple.  The expensive cover charges are the price of admission, not only to talk with the elected official, but also to help form relationships with others who have paid a similar amount.  Unfortunately, this campaign kickoff dinner is not an isolated occasion linked to this one so called representative.   Events like this happen all across America every week.

Looked at from another angle, the contributions to campaign funds by lobbyists, bundlers, and Political Action Committees are the “dues” necessary to become a loosely affiliated member of the “club”.   Over fifty years ago, this “club” is what C. Wright Mills called “The Power Elite”.  Mills described this “club” as being glued together by the interwoven interests of our corporate, military, and political leaders.  What was written about over fifty years ago, has become fully illuminated by this bailout plan.  This “club” is running OUR government! The truth is that ordinary Americans are being left relatively powerless and subject to the manipulation by today’s “ power elite”.   

Let’s get back to the rush and panic that has set in and around Washington and specifically within Congress itself.  Why not wait to have hearings?  Are there no alternatives to bailing out the people at the top?  Wouldn’t it be better to take $700 billion dollars and put it into direct aid to average Americans?  What about all the pillaging that was done by the “greedsters”? The panic and the chaos that has enveloped Washington is the result of the realization that, if hearings were held, the truth would come out.  The truth is that most members of Congress need to look no further than the nearest mirror.  The true blame for this mess rests with Congress itself and a system that thrives on special interest money.

Recently, we have seen the largest gap in the inequality of income since just before the Great Depression.  Out of the Great Depression came reform legislation such as the Glass-Steagall Act (1933), and later the 1956 Bank Holding Company Act, which mandated the separation of banks, insurance companies and securities firms.  In 1999, however, Congress passed the Financial Services Modernization Act which basically tore down what has often been called the firewalls between these institutions.   

As a result of the lack of regulatory firewalls, the arsonists of greed have pillaged our country and ordinary Americans are left to bear the costs of putting out the fire.  Congress is acting quickly to extinguish the flames because the heat is licking at their heels.   There is a problem in this country and the problem is special interest money in politics. It is at the root of nearly all political decision making and, in this case, will keep the embers burning long after temporarily taking the heat away from members of Congress.  This bailout plan is a smokescreen and where there is smoke, there remains fire.  Let’s make no mistake about this bailout situation.  The bottom line is that the middle class is being scorched and a trickling down economic plan will not put out a conflagration fueled by special interest money.

Respectfully,
 

Ed O’Reilly

 

There were only 8 Senators who voted against the 1999 “Modernization Act” and they were an eclectic mix that seldom, if ever, voted together – liberal stalwart Democrats Boxer, Feingold, Mikulski, and Wellstone to moderate Senators Bryan, Dorgan, and Harkin to the lone Republican, Senator Shelby (R-AL).  It will be interesting to see how the remaining 6 U.S. Senators vote on this bailout.

Of "Truth Squads" and fear of free speech: "Heed Their Rising Voices"

Senator Obama and his campaign are not the first people in the last fifty years of American history who have tried to use the law to quash political intimidation, especially when faced with the prospect of political ads that they fear. Indeed, one of the most important Supreme Court cases that emerged from the civil rights struggle of the twentieth century was brought by plaintiffs who did not like what what was said about them in a political ad, and was brought for the express purpose of chilling future political ads and press coverage of what they were doing. Those plaintiffs, southern law enforcement officials wanted to shut down attention being paid to the sometimes violent clashes between law enforcement and those fighting for civil rights. To draw attention to the problem, a group of civil rights activists took out an ad, headlined "Heed Their Rising Voices," in the New York Times. The ad described various events and tactics that southern law enforcement in Alabama had directed at civil rights protesters. The ad itself contained a few, relatively minor factual errors. But its real significance for those who wanted to continue to use brutal methods to suppress those fighting for civil rights was that it raised awareness across the country, and particularly the northern states, about what was going in Alabama, then one of the hotbeds of racism and resistance. The plaintiffs feared publicity, because they feared how people would react to publicity.  Because the defendants won and won on First Amendment grounds, "Heed Their Rising Voices" not only transformed defamation law in this country but  allowed the national press not just to run paid ads but to cover the civil rights movement in the South without fear. That coverage brought the events and the issues to nationwide attention and played a role in building a nationwide consensus that various laws and customs, particularly those from the Jim Crow era, were not only legally unacceptable, but socially and politically repugnant.

So, political ads can change the world. Apparently Senator Obama appreciates this. Hence the "truth squads" who, like the plaintiffs in Times v. Sullivan, will use law enforcement to shut down speech. (For discussion of the truth squads announced in Missouri look here and here.)

What Senator Obama seems to forget is the very high value our constitution places on political speech, even false political speech.

I confess a particular interest in the creation of these truth squads. With Marc Rubin, I founded The Denver Group, a political organization dedicated to running political ads, first during the primary season and now into the general election, under the banner Democrats For Principle Before Party. You can see ads we have created, raised money to run, and have run here and here. We are currently preparing television commercials to be aired in various states. With sufficient funds, we will most certainly run the commercials in every state where a "truth squad" is in operation. Because as Democrats and democrats we believe in full freedom of political speech - even if our Party's presidential candidate does not.

*********

To donate either online or via mail to support ad buys please see the donation information at Democrats for Principle Before Party - or you already know of our work and care to make a contribution you can do so by clicking this button:

THIS is what Nancy Pelosi is proud of?

Speaker Pelosi is striding around Capitol Hill as though she is responsible for a marvelous piece of proposed legislation: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Adobe PDF).

"We sent a message to Wall Street: The party is over," Pelosi told reporters at the U.S. Capitol early Sunday evening. Standing with other senior House and Senate Democrats, Pelosi said the bill legislation posted on her office's Web site reflected the final legislation, which she hopes the House will take up tomorrow. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, R-Nev., said the Senate would move promptly after the House had acted. [source]

Believe me, Speaker Pelosi, "Wall Street" knew the party was over long before the House you lead got around to doing anything about the situation, and long before your counterpart and pal Senate Majority Leader Reid chimed in. And the problems facing the financial markets are real. The question is, is this legislation you are so proudly touting anything more than a skimpy expensive band-aid?

This is the summary released by Speaker Pelosi's office, with annotations by me.

SUMMARY OF THE "EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACT OF 2008"

I. Stabilizing the Economy

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) provides up to $700 billion to the Secretary of the Treasury to buy mortgages and other assets that are clogging the balance sheets of financial institutions and making it difficult for working families, small businesses, and other companies to access credit, which is vital to a strong and stable economy. EESA also establishes a program that would allow companies to insure their troubled assets. [So, the Speaker  is proud of giving (up to) $700 BILLION of taxpayper money to Treasury Secretary Paulson so that he can use the money to protect BANKS AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS THAT HOLD MORTGAGES, a move that may or may not trickle down to "working families" and others mentioned. Considering how wonderfully it has turned out for the working families/small business owners when these institutions were flush, one wonders whether propping up those same institutions with billions of tax dollars paid by families/small businesses is not rather an ironic circle.]

II. Homeownership Preservation

EESA requires the Treasury to modify troubled loans - many the result of predatory lending practices - wherever possible  to help American families keep their homes. It also directs other federal agencies to modify loans that they own or control. Finally, it improves the HOPE for Homeowners program by expanding eligibility and increasing the tools available to the Department of Housing and Urban Development to help more families keep their homes. [After the banks and mortgage lenders get up to $700 billion dollars the Treasury Department will provide direct assistance to American homeowners, who may or may not have been preyed upon, "wherever possible"? Say what? "Wherever possible"? Where will Secretary Paulson consider such help possible? Where will his successor, who could easily be another Republican appointee, consider such help possible?]

III. Taxpayer Protection

Taxpayers should not be expected to pay for Wall Street's mistakes. The legislation requires companies that sell some of their bad assets to the government to provide warrants so that taxpayers will benefit from any future growth these companies may experience as a result of participation in this program. The legislation also requires the President to submit legislation that would cover any losses to taxpayers resulting from this program by charging a small, broad-based fee on all financial institutions. [Need to read the full text of the relevant provisions to assess this as the summary gets very vague here.]

IV. No Windfalls for Executives

Executives who made bad decisions should not be allowed to dump their bad assets on the government, and then walk away with millions of dollars in bonuses. In order to participate in this program, companies will lose certain tax benefits and, in some cases, must limit executive pay. In addition, the bill limits "golden parachutes" and requires that unearned bonuses be returned. [The LEAST that should be and could have been done.]

V. Strong Oversight

Rather than giving the Treasury all the funds at once, the legislation gives the Treasury $250 billion immediately, then requires the President to certify that additional funds are needed ($100 billion, then $350 billion subject to Congressional disapproval). The Treasury must report on the use of the funds and the progress in addressing the crisis. EESA also establishes an Oversight Board so that the Treasury cannot act in an arbitrary manner. It also establishes a special inspector general to protect against waste, fraud and abuse. [Under Speaker Pelosi, the House has passed bill after bill favored by the current President. Why should we think that a House led by her will not give the President everything he wants any time he wants it? Remember, this is a Democratic Speaker who took office saying "Impeachment is off the table" in reference to a President that many of us believe has been responsible for war crimes.]

Ok, so much for my thoughts about the summary and whether Speaker Pelosi should be crowing about this proposed legislation. After all, I am on record as somebody who is not a fan of her judgment and conduct.

Senator Obama, on the other hand, presumably thinks more highly of Speaker Pelosi's political judgment than I do, since she played a key role in wangling his spot on the Democratic ticket. His reaction to EESA:

In an interview Sunday morning on CBS' "Face the Nation," Obama said he had not reviewed the language of the latest proposal, but said if the core principles he put forth were incorporated into it, his "inclination" would be to vote for it; but he added "I'm not happy about it. We should have never gotten into this place in the first place." [source]

Well, Senator Obama, Speaker Pelosi has been in the House getting us into this place for over 20 years, the last seven or so as Speaker. Are you happy she's helped you get into your place today?

Update: Today's Wall Street Journal has a particularly interesting article that includes information about Congress's role in creating the current mess.

Introducing FDR

When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on.

--attributed to Franklin D. Roosevelt
in Evan Esar, the Dictionary of Humorous Quotations (1949)

In the past few weeks a number of Clinton Democrats have banded together to create a new organization:

FDR - For Democratic Reform

The FDR founders are starting now, in order to be ready to hit the deck running on our Day One, November 5. Whatever the election returns on November 4, November 5 is the day the long haul fight for the soul, the future, and the success of the Democratic Party begins.  FDR is a fledgling organization today, but by November 5 it will have laid the groundwork to take back our Party from corrupt so-called leaders, people who cheated and lied to put their preferred candidate at the top of the ticket, people who refused to acknowledge and often perpetuated the sexism and misogyny on display this campaign season, people who tolerated and thereby abetted intimidation at primaries, caucuses, and the Convention itself - in short people who call themselves Democrats but who have acted without regard for democratic or Democratic traditions, values, and principles. The Democratic Party includes many  and diverse politicians and rank-and-file voters who do in fact understand and appreciate these traditions, values, and principles. FDR will work to support these Democratic politicians and to provide a focal point for rank-and-file voters who now find themselves at the end of their ropes. FDR has tied its first knot. Join us in hanging on and hanging in at:

www.fordemocraticreform.com

Camp Obama?! Senator Obama seems to be turning into Rev. Sun Myung Moon

I shall leave it to other commentators to discuss tonight's debate between John McCain and Barack Obama.

My concern continues to be the effect Senator Obama and his campaign has had and is continuing to try to have on the nature of the Democratic Party. A friend sent the following on to me today, something that hit her email from the Massachusetts Obama campaign.

Please decide for yourself, but I personally do not want to see the Democratic Party riddled with people who want to use the same tactics used in Denver and in the caucuses and primaries to advance the Obama brand in the swing states.  This entire communication epitomizes the Obama approach to the Democratic Party: he and his supporters want to use tactics that borrow from fanatic yet powerful religious movements (e.g. the Unification Church) and effective yet fundamentally undemocratic political strategists (e.g. Karl Rove). The core of the Obama strategy: fake grassroots mobilization by sending people off to thought-camps where they can be trained from the top to serve, not the Democratic Party, but Senator Obama.

I have not noticed Senator Obama doing much for downticket Democrats. In my opinion that is because he cares not one whit for downticket Democrats or even rank and file Democrats - except as they can serve as instruments to put him into the White House. That's not leadership, and it certainly isn't loyalty. That's single-minded, self-serving will to power. And it isn't democratic. It ought not be acceptable to Democrats.

Read on about Camp Obama:

Dear _____   Hi, my name is Roger Fisk and I'm the State Director for the Obama campaign here in Massachusetts. I want to tell you about an exciting program we're launching called Camp Obama. During these training sessions, people like you will be taking their support for Barack to the next level by learning the organizing principles that this campaign and our movement for change are built on. Camp Obama attendees will receive real world organizing experience that will have a direct impact on this election. Graduates of Camp Obama will go on to become Deputy Field Organizers who will lead this campaign to victory in crucial battleground states around the country. Find out more about this exciting opportunity to take a leadership role in this movement for change. By participating in Camp Obama, you'll get the kind of experience that Barack got as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, where he learned that real change happens from the bottom up. That experience transformed Barack's life and made him who he is today. Camp Obama is your chance to put those very same principles into action -- to win this election and to strengthen democracy in communities around the country. After completing the program, you'll be required to work as a Deputy Field Organizer in a battleground state where you'll organize supporters and help lead our grassroots Get Out The Vote operation. Apply for a spot at Camp Obama and become a leader in our movement for change: http://ma.barackobama.com/CampObamaMA This campaign relies on the passion and enthusiasm of ordinary supporters, but it needs leaders who can organize these supporters and turn their enthusiasm into votes on Election Day. Camp Obama is your chance to step up and become a leader in this movement. Thanks, Roger Roger Fisk Massachusetts State Director Obama for America Visit: MA.BarackObama.com | Email: [email protected]

Paid for by Obama for America This email was sent to: [email protected]

Addition: Democrats For Principle Before Party, the new initiative from The Denver Group (which I co-founded with Marc Rubin), is currently raising funds to run commercials in the swing states in the run up to November 4. The Denver Group and its new initiative are aimed at keeping the Democratic Party democratic. You can learn more about Democrats For Principle Before Party/The Denver Group here. If you already know about the group and would like to help right here just click this button:

As we approach a new President's first 100 days...

We ought to consider the last U.S. President who came into office at a time of economic turmoil and used not only his first hundred days but all the years of his administrations to transform American society into one intended to be a union for mutual benefit. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jr. had an extraordinary sense of political-social empathy, the ability to relate to Americans completely unlike him in background but whose loyalty and trust he earned as he demonstrated how government could provide emergency relief without breaking individual taxpayers' backs or pushing U.S. businesses into collapse. Then, when the worst economic turbulence settled, F.D.R. worked with the legislature and the courts to introduce political oversight of the economy - not micromanagement - but oversight to keep greed and avarice from interfering with the cooperation necessary for mutual prosperity. Franklin Delano Roosevelt arrived in office with years of public service and political experience. He served in lower level offices - e.g. Assistant Secretary of the Navy - as well higher level ones - e.g. Governor of New York. He had honed his political acumen and his reputation for his commitment to the Democratic Party as a whole. He had seen rural poverty in Georgia and urban poverty in New York City. He had crisscrossed the country as a Vice-Presidential candidate. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jr. had flaws and faults (no human being does not) and he certainly had ambition. But he was that rare politician who almost always played to his strengths and who understood the importance of channeling personal ambition into a promoting a political agenda that would serve the many, not just the one. Some excerpts from The White House presidential biography series (emphasis added):

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Assuming the Presidency at the depth of the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt helped the American people regain faith in themselves. He brought hope as he promised prompt, vigorous action, and asserted in his [first] Inaugural Address, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

Following the example of his fifth cousin, President Theodore Roosevelt, whom he greatly admired, Franklin D. Roosevelt entered public service through politics, but as a Democrat. He won election to the New York Senate in 1910. President Wilson appointed him Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and he was the Democratic nominee for Vice President in 1920.

In the summer of 1921, when he was 39, disaster hit-he was stricken with poliomyelitis. Demonstrating indomitable courage, he fought to regain the use of his legs, particularly through swimming. At the 1924 Democratic Convention he dramatically appeared on crutches to nominate Alfred E. Smith as "the Happy Warrior." In 1928 Roosevelt became Governor of New York.

He was elected President in November 1932, to the first of four terms. By March there were 13,000,000 unemployed, and almost every bank was closed. In his first "hundred days," he proposed, and Congress enacted, a sweeping program to bring recovery to business and agriculture, relief to the unemployed and to those in danger of losing farms and homes, and reform, especially through the establishment of the Tennessee Valley Authority. By 1935 the Nation had achieved some measure of recovery, but businessmen and bankers were turning more and more against Roosevelt's New Deal program. They feared his experiments, were appalled because he had taken the Nation off the gold standard and allowed deficits in the budget, and disliked the concessions to labor. Roosevelt responded with a new program of reform: Social Security, heavier taxes on the wealthy, new controls over banks and public utilities, and an enormous work relief program for the unemployed. In 1936 he was re-elected by a top-heavy margin. Feeling he was armed with a popular mandate, he sought legislation to enlarge the Supreme Court, which had been invalidating key New Deal measures. Roosevelt lost the Supreme Court battle, but a revolution in constitutional law took place. Thereafter the Government could legally regulate the economy.

Sadly, the current leadership of The Democratic Party has denied the country the opportunity to elect this year a President who could have delivered a ReNewed Deal for all those who live and work in the United States of America. As Chief Executive, Hillary Rodham Clinton would have started on day one to help the American people regain faith in themselves and in one another, not in an ethereal vague way but by pursuing practical policies and policies honed over many years of public and political service. The Democratic Party must be reformed so that it never deprives the country of such an opportunity again.

If you, like me, are For Democratic Reform (FDR), please consider donating to Democrats for Principle Before Party and one of Senator Clinton's campaign funds (donation links are in the side bars).

How confident are you in their ability to make the right decisions about the economy?

That is the header on small graphic on the front page of today's New York Times. The "they" mentioned in the question are Barack Obama and John McCain.  For Senator Obama 64% responded "very/somewhat"and 34% responded "not too/not at all".  For Senator McCain, 55% responded "very/somewhat" and 45% responded "not too/not at all".

Not too/not at all encouraging. Neither of the candidates have the confidence of an overwhelming majority of Americans that they can make the right decisions about the economy.

Neither major political party is currently running a presidential candidate most Americans particularly want to see in office.

Morning thought experiment:

What would the figures have looked like in Clinton/McCain match-up? A Clinton/Romney match-up? An Obama/Romney match-up?

And, according to the New York Times, the current President's great summit did little to advance Congressional action on a band-aid for the the economy, which everybody seems to believe must happen and soon.  The headline: "Tentative Accord Crumbles at a White House Meeting". Good going, Mr. President and Messrs. Wanna-Be President.

We better hope that the founders' visions for our country, which allowed for the possibility of strong effective legislative leadership - which is currently conspicuously absent given House Republican leader leader John A. Boenher and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and their Senate counterparts - can be redeemed by a major change in who gets elected to the 111th Congress and who ends up in leadership positions from both parties. Because I highly doubt that the next occupant of the Oval Office is going to be the sort of successful leader either Party is touting their guy to be.