Hello,

We need to fight back against the lies, fight back with the truth.

The pattern is always the same. Right-wing front groups spend weeks or months peddling a distortion, putting millions of dollars behind ads, pushing out chain emails, misleading millions into believing lies. And then they push it into the center of the debate.

The health care fight has been marked by outragous distortions -- from so-called "death panels" to lies about the public option. And the battle to stop climate change and build a clean energy future is shaping up the same way. We need to fight back before the debate gets to that point; we need to spend as much time building support for the truth as they do building support for lies.

That's why I'll be launching TruthFightsBack.com to fight back against the lies from Big Oil and other forces of the status quo. And I need your help. They are already putting millions of dollars behind the distortions; we need to do all we can to give the truth a fighting chance.

Please contribute what you can to help the truth fight back.

TruthFightsBack.com will do more than give you the truth; it will give you the tools you need to push the truth, to raise the volume of the truth loud enough to drown out the shouting of the lies. And millions of activists can be our eyes and ears to make sure everyone knows the distortions that are coming.

We need to buy ads on search engines, hire researchers to fight back in real time, build the best tools to push the truth in every way we can, from letters to the editor to influencing social media like Facebook and Twitter to email networks. This is the way debates in the 21st century will be won, and we need to make sure we can win them.

So please do what you can to help. Whether it's $25, $50, $100 or more, every contribution will give the truth more of a chance to fight back.

The stakes are too high to let distortions and lies twist our debate. Our planet is endangered by ever-increasing carbon pollution. We need to fight for a clean energy future where America is in charge of our own power.

Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,

Senator John Kerry

We'll need all the help we can get to make this site work. The forces of the status quo are putting millions of dollars behind distortions and lies, so we need to all join together to fight back with the truth.

Here's a personal look ... I was driving through Indiana way back in September, a month before the Kerry-Boxer climate bill was introduced, and months before the full Senate will consider it, and already I saw billboards saying that Democratic Senator Evan Bayh "kills jobs" because of support for climate legislation. Now, even leaving aside the fact that Evan Bayh hasn't announced any support for the legislation, the billboard is flat out wrong. Dealing with our dirty energy economy will unleash a wave of innovation and creating millions of good-paying jobs that can't be outsourced overseas. It - along with health care reform and reform of our financial industry - is a vital step to reforming our economy and making it ready for the challenges of the 21st Century.

So please do what you can to help:

TruthFightsBack.com

Steven Hayward, the F.K. Weyerhaeuser fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, recently said, “The brain waves of the American right continue to be erratic, when they are not flat-lining.”  He may have had in mind his AEI colleague Kenneth Green, whose lack of knowledge on climate was laid bare for all to see by Sen. John Kerry in today’s Finance Committee hearing [...]

Green’s lame defense of himself is no surprise since he regularly spouts stuff like, “No matter what you’ve been told, the technology to significantly reduce emissions is decades away and extremely costly” — from a 2008 speech AEI later removed from their website (excerpts here).  And last month, he weirdly compared EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to Clint Eastwood and carbon polluters to criminals.

Kudos to Senator Kerry for exposing this American Enterprise Institute “expert.”

Joe embeds the video, so go watch ...

I don't know if anyone who hasn't had a family member or close friend striken by cancer. We've made a lot of progress against the disease, and it's organizations like the Jimmy Fund and events like the PanMass Challenge who are leading the fight.

So please do what you can by following this link:

Give to support the PanMass Challenge

Hearing: The Consumer Wireless Experience

I live in Northern Middlesex county. The aftermath of this ice storm resembles the aftermath of a tornado more than anything else.  There were trees down all around where I live. Some were thin, shallow-rooted trees like birch and "junk" maples. Those are relatively easy to clear out or move aside so work crews can collect them later. There were also a lot of big thick pine and oak and other trees that crashed down as well. Many of these trees dropped onto power lines, went through windows or roofs of houses or landed on car tops. Getting these trees or branches removed is a lot harder to do. The cleanup from this storm is going to last a long, long time.

My house was without power from early Friday morning through mid-afternoon Monday. Like so many others in New England, my family dealt with the storm by piling up logs for the wood stove and fireplace, wrapping pipes in the basement and praying that the insulation would keep out the freezing cold. My husband and I surveyed the damage on our lot and gathered information for the insurance adjusters. Our neighbors managed to get through the storm with the same minor damage we did. We were all fairly lucky.  There were many more in Massachusetts who were not so lucky and will be cleaning up from this storm for a long while.

The Lawrence Eagle Tribune has a webpage up simply called Ice Monster. There are pictures there that detail the almost unimaginable destruction the ice storm left behind. It mirrors scenes I saw in my town; roads made nearly impassable by tree branches, huge piles of wood and debris pushed into the side of the road, homes and businesses trying to operate on generators. The DPW workers have been working around the clock to try and clear the worst of the hazards and get schools up and running and roads cleared.  They have done incredible, exhausting work and deserve a lot of thanks and praise for their dedication.

For a lot of people who are already dealing with the effects of the bad economy, this is one more costly blow to absorb. I talked to families who had managed to put some money away for the Holidays who now have to redirect that cash to deal with the affects of the storm. The need is going to be even greater this year at local food pantries and assistance centers as people try to figure out how they are going to recover from the cost of this storm amid other financial hardships. I hope the spirit of generosity, patience and humor that I saw displayed in so many folks this past weekend will extend over the winter.  It will be sorely needed

The Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) sent out these tips for dealing with the effects of this storm.  Share these with friends and neighbors who are still coping with storm-related problems.

Post-Storm Tips

MEMA offers safety tips to those who continue to be impacted by the recent Ice Storm.

• During the outage, do not open your refrigerator or freezer door. Food can stay cold in a full refrigerator for up to 24 hours, and in a well-packed freezer for 48 hours (24 hours if it is half-packed). After that time frame, you must consider disposing of this food.
• If you have medication that requires refrigeration, check with your pharmacist for guidance on proper storage during an extended outage.
• To keep pipes from freezing, wrap them in insulation or layers of newspapers, covering the newspapers with plastic to keep out moisture.
• Let faucets drip a trickle of water from the faucet farthest from your water meter to help keep pipes from freezing.
• If pipes freeze, remove insulation, completely open all faucets and pour hot water over the pipes, starting where they are most exposed to the cold. A hand-held hair dryer, used with caution, also works well.
• In order to protect against possible voltage irregularities that can occur when power is restored, you should unplug all sensitive electronic equipment, including your TVs, stereo, VCR, microwave oven, computer, cordless telephone, answering machine and garage door opener.
• Be extra cautious around downed or hanging electrical wires. Expect all wires to be live wires. Never attempt to touch or move downed lines. Do not touch anything power lines are touching, such as tree branches or fences.
• Do not become a 'spectator'. Continue to stay off streets in the affected areas, letting the crews do their jobs.
• Call 2-1-1 for non-emergency storm-related questions.

President-elect Barack Obama plans to appoint a new White House official to coordinate efforts to prevent terrorists from obtaining nuclear or biological weapons, advisers say, giving the highest priority to thwarting a catastrophic attack that a bipartisan panel warns could come in the next five years.

Naming a top deputy whose sole mission is to oversee the government's wide-ranging programs to stop such an attack would mark a significant break with the Bush administration, which in resisting such a post has maintained that US efforts to reduce nuclear stockpiles and safeguard deadly pathogens are adequate.

In the 2004 Presidential debates, both Senator Kerry and President Bush both agreed that the single most serious threat to the US and the world was nuclear proliferation. However, as noted in the Globe story, the Bush Administration has not increased efforts to combat this growing threat.

 Senator Kerry wrote an OpEd earlier this year that laid out a list of four things that the US could do to reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation.  

First, engage the American people in this cause. Within the first 100 days, the next president should give a policy address demonstrating his commitment to a nuclear-weapons-free world. Generations have grown up never knowing anything but the old order of mutually assured destruction, but the stage is already set for a big policy shift. In fact, 17 of the 24 former secretaries of state and defence and national security advisers support moving towards a nuclear-free world. This bipartisan council of elders includes cold-eyed realists such as Henry Kissinger and George Schultz and defence hawks such as Sam Nunn and Bill Perry. The new president should bring this august group to the White House Rose Garden so Americans can see at first hand the face of a new consensus.

Second, create a new position: a deputy national security adviser to the president, whose sole responsibility is to prevent nuclear terrorism.

Third, empower this individual to lead an accelerated effort - a Manhattan Project in reverse: instead of racing to assemble a bomb, make sure nobody else can. We should aim to secure all "loose" nuclear material worldwide by the end of the next president's first term and establish a global gold standard for their safe custody.

Fourth, the new president should ensure that our nuclear policy reflects the cold war's conclusion almost two decades ago. The US and Russia no longer need a combined stockpile of more than 20,000 warheads, many of them on "hair trigger" alert. We can and should work to extend the 1991 strategic arms reduction treaty, reach a new agreement reducing strategic nuclear forces resulting in no greater than 1,000 deployed warheads, and increase warning times prior to launch.

The points raised by Sen. Kerry are in line with the recommendations contained in the report being released today.  The Boston Globe summarized those recommendations as follows:

Report Recommendations

• Stop nuclear weapons programs in Iran and North Korea, using diplomacy backed by credible threat of force.
• Work with Pakistan and other countries to eliminate terrorist safe havens and secure nuclear and biological materials in that country.
• Do comprehensive review of global nuclear security and restructure relationship with Russia.
• Work with Russia to jointly reduce dangers, including extending provisions expiring in 2009 in strategic arms treaty, upgrading security at sites in Russia, and encouraging China, India, and Pakistan to stop producing fissile material.
• Review and tighten measures to secure dangerous pathogens, including high-risk biolabs; improve rapid response to prevent mass casualties from biological attacks.
• Press for international conference on biosecurity, strengthen global disease surveillance networks.
• Impose penalties for violating nuclear nonproliferation treaty, strengthen International Atomic Energy Agency, ensure access to nuclear fuel for countries without nuclear weapons.
• Designate a principal White House adviser on nuclear and biological weapons and terrorism, restructure National Security Council and Homeland Security Council.
• Reform congressional oversight of nonproliferation and terrorism.
• Accelerate integration of counterproliferation, counterterrorism, and law enforcement agencies.
• More effectively counter the ideology fueling terrorists who might use nuclear or biological weapons.
• Within six months of new administration, develop a checklist of actions for which citizens can hold government accountable.

SOURCE: Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism

What a difference an election can make.  It is encouraging to see this issue being given the prominence it deserves. The Commission report encourages the Congress and President to work together to oversee efforts to contain the spread of nuclear and biological material that could wind up in terrorist hands.This is a very welcome development and heralds a new seriousness on the part of the US to deal with this extremely important issue.

It used to be a dream, a nearly impossible goal: 60 seats on the Senate, a filibuster-proof majority to bring real change, and a resounding, mandate-sized majority in the House.

But now it's possible. And it's possible because of some amazing races in places no one thought possible. We can turn out some Republicans that are directly opposed to our values, and bring in some great Democrats.

Senators Saxby Chambliss, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and arch-conservative Marilyn Musgrave in the House, all can be beaten.

But we won't be able to do it without all of us doing everything we can right now. This is the vital moment, the time for maximum effort to change our country forever.

Right in my home state of Georgia, Jim Martin has put together a campaign that is shocking the political world. No one gave Jim a chance against Saxby Chambliss, but Jim put together a great grassroots campaign and the polls have closed to a virtual tie. But, believe me, I know, Saxby Chambliss will run any smear, stoop to any low attack, in his attempt to win. So we have to give Jim the resources he'll need to fight back.

And in Kentucky, Bruce Lunsford stepped up to take on the challenge that few thought could be met: taking down the chief roadblock in the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. No one in Congress has done more to block the change we need than Mitch McConnell, and Bruce has brought him to the brink of defeat.

And turning to the House, Betsy Markey is running a fantastic campaign against one of the most conservative Republican in the House, Marilyn Musgrave. Musgrave is the original sponsor of the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, was one of the most vocal Republicans in the Terri Schiavo case, and was ranked by Rolling Stone as one of the 10 Worst Members of Congress. But Betsy Markey, a strong Democrat, has pulled even in the polls and can rid our Congress of Marilyn Musgrave.

But they need your help! Please donate today!

Chances like this come along very rarely, a time when we can completely remake the political map. But we need to seize this moment. We are competing all over the map, and late charges by candidates like these need more help than anyone because they haven't had the national focus for very long. So please do what you can to help us change our country forever.

Thank you,
Max Cleland

This was Senator Kerry's message on election night in Boston for all the voters in Massachusetts:

"I am humbled to receive the support of voters from Williamstown to Provincetown and every city and town in between, and I promise to continue to prove worthy of your confidence in me over the next six years.

"Yes, we have challenges to tackle in this country and in Massachusetts. But the American people's remarkable reservoir of talent, innovation, resolve and selflessness has triumphed time and time again. Our history is one of not just overcoming challenges but of emerging from difficult times stronger and better prepared to prosper as a nation.

"I have always been honored to represent the people of Massachusetts and I can't wait to return to Washington with my friend Ted Kennedy by my side and continue to deliver for you and your families. I promise to continue the fight to win back our future and honor your faith in me."

Leave it all on the road. I see that that's the slogan here, and as a competitive cyclist, I know the feeling. You can't hold anything back, and you can't take anything for granted.

The polls look good, but let me tell you, the early exit polls four years ago looked fantastic. But the cliché is true: polls don't matter. Only votes do. And the large majority of those votes will be cast tomorrow. We have to do everything we possibly can to blow the Republican GOTV effort out of the water.

If we're up by 4 in the polls in a state, we can win by 7. If we're tied, we can win by 3. If we all do our best right now, we'll not only win this election, but win the kind of mandate we need to actually change our country.

All of you remember what we went through last year. I'd come here to this community, and we'd talk about what we could do to pressure a few more Republicans to try to see the light and chart a new course on Iraq, or give more kids health care, or anything else that they blocked. That's what a small, unworkable majority can bring.

This next day can change all that. We can have a true Democratic majority, filled with new progressives ready to move this country - finally! - into the 21st century. But we have to get absolutely every vote we can get. So please do what you can to get-out-the-vote. Head over the Barack's website to see what you can do:

Volunteer!

And then email everyone in your address book that address and ask them to do what they can.

I was in New Hampshire this past weekend, and it was incredible. The organization that the Obama campaign has built is enormous, and it's able to put huge numbers of people to work. But that organization depends on those people actually showing up to do that work. And "those people" are YOU. You are the bedrock of the Democratic Party, the activists who make it all work.

And this is a time to make it work. As Barack has said many times, you don't run to the finish line, you run through the finish line.

Because you know whom we know is working hard? John McCain and Sarah Palin are working hard, along with the Republican Party, criss-crossing the country and continuing their misleading attacks on Barack Obama. But we can overwhelm them because we have truth on our side, and we have you. If they drive a voter to the polls, we should drive three, four, five voters to the polls. If they make one call, we should make five.

So check out what you can do by clicking here to volunteer. And you can find your polling place by clicking here:

http://VoteForChange.com

Pass that URL around to everyone you know so they can find their polling place as well.

If we can turn all of our supporters out, if we can all go to the polls and bring people with us, our country will never be the same. We need a victory large enough that the personal attacks of the McCain campaign are discredited, the policies of the Bush-McCain GOP are repudiated, and the ideology of the extreme right is rejected, once and for all.

And then we can work together on how to get this country moving again, instead of just trying to limit the damage of a Republican President and his Roadblock Republican allies.

Tomorrow is election day. This is our time.

This election is not about fear; it is about the American people and their desire to move beyond partisanship. Senator Kerry explainedwhat had been left out of the argument by Fred Thompson:

You never heard Fred Thompson mention the word middle class.  You never heard him offer one proposal for John McCain as to how he will deal with this economic crisis.  You know, there've been two real presidential tests during this campaign.  The first was the choice of the vice president, and it is very clear John McCain went back on his own promises in the primaries, on Fred Thompson's own promises in the primaries, and chose somebody who has zero national security experience, who by definition is not ready to be ready to be president immediately, which is the very qualification John McCain set up.

Secondly, the second critical presidential moment was the economic crisis.  On 15 September, John McCain said the fundamentals of our economy are sound. That was his judgment.  Three days later, he suspends his campaign and says it's the greatest economic crisis since World War II.  He lurches erratically from one place to another.  He doesn't offer any constructive suggestion as to what you do about it.  Senator Obama did offer those.  In fact, all four of his fundamental principles were passed by the United States Congress and put into effect.  So I think on the two critical presidential decisions in this campaign, Barack Obama has been calm and steady and John McCain has been sort of erratic and, frankly, impulsive.  Now, come to the security issue.  Barack Obama has more security experience than Bill Clinton had when he became president.  He has more security experience than Ronald Reagan had when he became president.  And the fact is, it's not just time and a place, and I love John McCain.  I--I've worked with him, I know him.

 It is time to turn the page on the the failed policies of the Bush Administration that John McCain advocates. Barack Obama offers renewal and a chance to change direction for the country.  Sen. Kerry spoke to this yesterday:

This is a moment for change, Tom.  And I might add, you know, if, if John McCain were elected--you look around the world--this is a man who was the biggest cheerleader for the war in Iraq.  He was wrong about who's fighting whom, Sunni-Shia violence.  He was wrong about us being liberators.  He was the first to stand on an aircraft carrier and say, "Next up, Baghdad." He cannot break the break we need from the, from the Bush-Cheney years.  We've got to have a fresh start for America.  We need to move in a new direction, and Barack Obama brings us that.

The Obama campaign is practicing a cautionary lesson by working, working, working.  I mean, the bottom line is you take nothing for granted.  And I know that the candidate, every member of the campaign, and all of his supporters are taking nothing for granted.  Presidential races tighten up anyway.  That year we had a particular event that pushed it, but I think everybody has to be very cautious here and simply work as hard as possible right up until 8:00 on Tuesday night.

See you all at the phonebanks, the visibilities, the canvassing stations and the ballot box. Together we will bring about the change America needs.

You know what they say to me sometimes? They look at me and they say, "Can you really do this? Can you elect Barack Obama, can you elect this guy?" Yes we can.  And that's exactly what I tell them. And when we do my friends, we will have changed history in a bigger way than I  think at any time in America and in any Presidential race. We will have given life to our values. We will have given a reality to the American story that reaches all acrosss the planet. And once again an American President's picture will hang in huts in Central and South America, and in Africa and in Asia and in places where they look up to the values that we stand for. That's what's at stake here.

Nicholas Kristof, in his column in the New York Times this morning, agrees with that sentiment. Kristof notes that electing Obama president would signal to the world the elasticity and promise of American democracy. The world would wake up on November 5th with a different view of the United States.

We’re beginning to get a sense of how Barack Obama’s political success could change global perceptions of the United States, redefining the American “brand” to be less about Guantánamo and more about equality. This change in perceptions would help rebuild American political capital in the way that the Marshall Plan did in the 1950s or that John Kennedy’s presidency did in the early 1960s.

Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes, which conducted the BBC poll, said that at a recent international conference he attended in Malaysia, many Muslims voiced astonishment at Mr. Obama’s rise because it was so much at odds with their assumptions about the United States. Remember that the one thing countless millions of people around the world “know” about the United States is that it is controlled by a cabal of white bankers and Jews who use police with fire hoses to repress blacks. To them, Mr. Obama’s rise triggers severe cognitive dissonance.

“It’s an anomaly, so contrary to their expectation that it makes them receptive to a new paradigm for the U.S.,” Mr. Kull said.

General Colin Powell said in his endorsement Sunday on Meet the Press that the election of Barack Obama would signal transformational change in America.  Senator Kerry said the same thing in January when he endorsed Barack Obama for President.  America has a chance not just to turn a new page at home, but a chance to show the rest of the world that we can renew our our values at the ballot box.  This will have a profound impact all around the world. It is yet another thing to consider in this historic election year.

But which is the president that we need now?  Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time?  And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities--and we have to take that into account--as well as his substance--he has both style and substance--he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president.  I think he is a transformational figure.  He is a new generation coming into the world--onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.

Senator Kerry, in his endorsement of Barack Obama back in January also cited the possibility of transformational change. This is a chance to renew America and change our image around the world. The world needs to see an America that embraces it's own best ideals and and America that wants to live up to those ideals at home and abroad.  Gen. Powell also took note of that in his comments yesterday.

As impressive as this endorsement was, I was more struck by the eloquence of the words General Powell used in his call for and end to slurs and negativity in this campaign. 

I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian.  He's always been a Christian.  But the really right answer is, what if he is?  Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America.  Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president?  Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine.  It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.  And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave.  And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone.  And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death.  He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith.  And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey.  He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life.  Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way.

Exactly so. Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann recently called for hearings to examine whether or not members of Congress are "anti-American" or not. Gov. Sarah Palin had accused the Democratic nominee of  "pallin' around with terrorists." One woman at a McCain rally even called Senator Obama "an Arab" as if that alone was a disqualification for holding public office.

Gen. Powell's remarks speak to the higher ideals of America. It should make no difference what your background, religion or ethnicity is in this country.  We don't have loyalty tests or DNA screens to test and see if a candidate for public office is "American"  enough to run.  This was a stirring and eloquent reminder that an America at her best is an America that embraces the diversity of her people as a strength.  I couldn't agree more.

We need an end to the politics of division and hate. 

Bachmann not only pushed the point that the news media needs to investigate Senator Obama for what she called his "anti-American" views, but she further suggested that other sitting Members of Congress should also be investigated to see if they also hold "anti-American" views. This is a sitting U.S. House Member who is calling for a return of Eugene(sorry, Gene!) Joseph McCarthy-type investigations into the patriotism of fellow Members of Congress.  Apparently the refrain, "Have you no shame at all?" has no meaning to her.

The interview on Hardball invoked instant outrage on the web. The call went out to show the Congresswoman that her remarks are unacceptable in a way that she could not ignore or laugh off. The campaign of her Democratic opponent, El Tinklenberg, was inundated with donations from people all across this country. Maybe Republicans still think they can play these types of outrageous games and get away them them. I think the massive outpouring of money and offers of help to Mr. Tinklenberg prove that wrong. 

This is America. We don't have loyalty tests. It is wrong and outrageous to pretend that one side in a political debate holds the sanctioned "American" view and the other side somehow has suspect loyalties.  This is the type of ugly, anything goes politics that offends voters and cheapens public discourse.

The Tinklenberg campaign posted a diary on DailyKos this morning to thank all the people who gave voice to their outrage by sending money or volunteering for their campaign to unseat Ms. Bachmann.  

I am both hopeful and humbled at the reminder you gave me tonight - that in our country's darkest times, it is the strength and belief and action of ordinary Americans that ultimately brings about the change we need. From the hardworking folks in Minnesota's Sixth District to all of you: we are proud to have you on our side.

Senator Kerry spoke at the Democratic National Convention back in August and warned against the Republican scare tactics:

This election is a chance for America to tell the merchants of fear and division: you don’t decide who loves this country; you don’t decide who is a patriot; you don’t decide whose service counts and whose doesn’t.

This incredible response by the Netroots really does show that YOU have the power to rise up and tell the Smear Machine that this type of campaign is disgusting and unacceptable.

You let them know:  we're not gonna take it anymore. Every voice that was raised, every dime sent in and every volunteer signed up, shows the fear merchants that things have changed in American and they are not going to get away with loyalty tests and smears. We're not gonna take it, anymore.

The U.S. Supreme Court, siding with Democrats, freed Ohio officials from a lower court order that might have limited participation by new voters in next month's presidential election.

Today's ruling means Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner doesn't have to provide county election boards with lists of new registrants whose information doesn't match up with government databases. A federal trial judge had ordered Brunner, a Democrat, to supply the lists by today.

The Supreme Court said Republicans who sued Brunner ``are not sufficiently likely to prevail'' because the federal law they invoked doesn't authorize private suits. The two-page unsigned order was issued on behalf of the full court, without any published dissent.

Brunner said the judge's order could have affected as many as 200,000 Ohioans, potentially forcing them to cast provisional ballots instead of regular ballots. Democrats likely would have been disproportionately affected by the judge's order because of the party's efforts to register new voters this year.

The Secretary of State's office in Ohio has a notice on it's website about the identification required in order to legally cast a ballot in Ohio.

Every voter must provide proof of identity at the time of voting. A person who casts a provisional ballot and does not provide acceptable proof of identity at the time of voting is allowed to provide such proof within 10 days after the election, in accordance with law.

The New York Times article on the Ohio case reports on the reasons why there are discrepencies in voter registration rolls.

Voting experts and state election officials added that many voters were likely to be flagged erroneously because the databases used to check voter registrations were prone to errors. Most non-matches are the result of typographical errors by government officials, computer errors, use of nicknames or middle initials, not voter ineligibility, they said.

In one audit of match failures in 2004 by New York City election officials, more than 80 percent of the failures were found to have resulted from errors by government officials; most of the remaining failures were because of immaterial discrepancies between the two records.

Ms. Brunner had also argued that requiring so many voters to cast provisional ballots would raise tensions at the polls and worsen lines and confusion on Election Day in a year when she is expecting unprecedented turnout.

In the vice presidential debate last Thursday night at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, there was a heated exchange between Senator Joe Biden of Delaware and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin over Iraq. Gov Palin had incorrectly stated that troops levels were now down to pre-surge levels. She echoed Sen McCain's views about success in Iraq but but did not define what success meant or what it would take to achieve that goal. Sen. Biden replied that the Senator Obama had a plan to gradually withdraw troops from Iraq according to a timeline; an idea supported by Iraqi government officials as well. Gov Palin, in the following exchange, responded to the idea of a timeline with a smear:

PALIN: Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq and that is not what our troops need to hear today, that's for sure. And it's not what our nation needs to be able to count on. You guys opposed the surge. The surge worked. Barack Obama still can't admit the surge works.

We'll know when we're finished in Iraq when the Iraqi government can govern its people and when the Iraqi security forces can secure its people. And our commanders on the ground will tell us when those conditions have been met. And Maliki and Talabani also in working with us are knowing again that we are getting closer and closer to that point, that victory that's within sight.

The purpose of the surge was not to have troops in Iraq indefinitely. The purpose of the surge was to stabilize the violence in Iraq so that political progress could be made. Frederick Kagen, one of the authors of the surge policy, explained this in an appearance on the Jim Lehrer Hour on PBS back in March of 2008:

FREDERICK KAGAN: Well, the main purpose of the surge was to get the sectarian violence in and around Baghdad under control so that it would be possible for the Iraqis to start making political progress.

Gov Palin and Senator McCain continuously misstate both the purpose of the surge and what it has accomplished. Sen. McCain, in particular, restates the history and timeline of events in Iraq in order to support his contention that the surge is responsible for the Sunni Awakening in Al Anbar province. This is not so. Senator Kerry, in a speech this past July at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, laid out the real history and conditions in Iraq that have led to a lessening of the violence in that country:

The Anbar Awakening started well before the surge. This is more than just a political gotcha game or yet another instance of Senator McCain getting his facts wrong. To apply counterinsurgency principles on a global scale, we need to draw the right lessons from the surge.

Let's look at exactly what happened. And this is important: the tensions between al Qaeda in Iraq and Sunni leaders in Anbar were already apparent nearly two years before the surge, culminating in the first reported battle between AQI and Sunni militias in the western town of Husaybah in May of 2005. The reason? Al Qaeda's brutality, disrespect for local customs, insistence on marrying local women over the objections of tribal leaders, and disruption of local businesses.

When Colonel Sean MacFarland and his Ready First brigade arrived in Ramadi in June of 2006, al Qaeda was still fully in control. The Ready First immediately saw the need for a change in tactics and-on their own-they launched an extensive outreach campaign to win over the local population-starting with local tribal leaders, to whom they assigned an Arabic-speaking former special forces officer who grew a moustache to gain the locals' trust. They emphasized getting local Iraqi forces out into neighborhoods by deputizing tribal militias.

These efforts culminated on September 9, 2006 - some four months before the surge was even announced -- when a young local sheik, Sittar albu-Risha, created a new Awakening Council and officially declared the Anbar Awakening underway. That created a snowball effect. And, as MacFarland noted, with the 2006 US election approaching "a growing concern that U.S. forces would leave Iraq" made tribal leaders open to our overtures - a not unimportant transformation as we think about leveraged changes in behavior that might come from redeployment of American forces. By late October, nearly every tribe around Ramadi had either joined the Awakening or was openly considering it.

The coming months saw the Awakening Movement, with American help, repel an AQI attack on a friendly sheik in the Battle of Sufia. As security improved, a major campaign was launched to rebuild Ramadi, culminating in the Ramadi Reconstruction Conference in January 2007.

For those of you keeping score, this is the point in the story where the surge begins. President Bush announced the surge on January 10th 2007. In fact, President Bush and Senator McCain both pointed to our success in flipping tribes in Ramadi against AQI as a reason to support the surge.

Let me be clear: there is no question that our troops performed heroically, and did everything that was asked of them and more. And yes, they undoubtedly played a significant role in securing Baghdad and helping to expand the Awakening beyond Anbar Province.

But, the true history of the Awakening is important in drawing the right lessons from the surge. The Iraqis made a political calculation that they didn't like al Qaeda and wanted to work with us. The actions that led to the Awakening reflected our understanding that U.S. military action alone would not defeat the terrorists: we needed to win over the population by co-opting the tribal sheiks, utilizing indigenous security forces, winning the information war, and helping our Iraqi allies deliver goods, services and improved governance.

Moreover, the reduction in violence resulted from many other factors beyond a simple surge of troops. You have to consider Moqtada al Sadr's ceasefire in August 2007, the sectarian segregation of neighborhoods, and the success of Iraqi security forces, with US military support, in taking the streets back from Shia militias, especially in Basra. We also benefitted from the death of al Qaeda in Iraq's leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in a US airstrike.

Certainly, as Senator Kerry has stated, the surge played a part in stabilizing the country. But so did other factors. Sen. McCain and Gov Palin should recognize that and recognize that the Iraqis want a timeline for a reasoned and safe withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. The goal of the surge was to create breathing room for Iraqi politicians to begin to solve their political differences. Stating otherwise is just fixing the facts of what happened in Iraq to fit policies that Iraqis no longer want.

IFILL: Next question, Governor Palin, still on the economy. Last year, Congress passed a bill that would make it more difficult for debt-strapped mortgage-holders to declare bankruptcy, to get out from under that debt. This is something that John McCain supported. Would you have?

PALIN: Yes, I would have.

Gov. Palin went to great lengths to portray herself in folksy terms, often winking at the camera and using homey phrases like, "Now doggone it," This was her attempt to appeal to "Joe Six-Pack" voters, as she styled it, in America. Her sympathies for middle-class voters is limited though, as that quick answer to the question about her support for the Bankruptcy Bill shows.

Sen. Biden, in his response to Gwen Ifill, talked about Sen. Obama's concern over the mortgage market and the rising number of foreclosures:

BIDEN: But here's the deal. Barack Obama pointed out two years ago that there was a subprime mortgage crisis and wrote to the secretary of Treasury. And he said, "You'd better get on the stick here. You'd better look at it."

John McCain said as early as last December, quote -- I'm paraphrasing -- "I'm surprised about this subprime mortgage crisis," number one.

Number two, with regard to bankruptcy now, Gwen, what we should be doing now -- and Barack Obama and I support it -- we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to re-adjust not just the interest rate you're paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe, the principal that you owe.

That would keep people in their homes, actually help banks by keeping it from going under. But John McCain, as I understand it -- I'm not sure of this, but I believe John McCain and the governor don't support that. There are ways to help people now. And there -- ways that we're offering are not being supported by -- by the Bush administration nor do I believe by John McCain and Governor Palin.

IFILL: Governor Palin, is that so?

PALIN: That is not so, but because that's just a quick answer,

Well, it was so. Not only did Sen. McCain support the Bankruptcy Bill in 2005, but he voted against nearly every amendment to that bill that sought to protect the rights of "Joe Six-Pack" in a bankruptcy case. Sen. McCain does not support the 2008 Senate measure entitled, "Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2008," which is what Sen. Biden was referring to in his debate remarks quoted above.(Senator Kerry, along with 13 other Senators including Senator Obama, is a co-sponsor of this amendment that seeks to help  people retain their homes and avoid foreclosure.)

Senator McCain has a consistent record of voting to help out the richest Americans when it comes to protecting assets from being seized in bankruptcy proceedings. He voted not once, but twice in 2005 to uphold "asset protection trusts" in bankruptcy cases and is against helping "Joe Six-Pack" Americans when their homes where threatened with foreclosure. Governor Palin seems to disagree with the Senator on this. Maybe she can push him to start showing middle-class Americans the same kind of concern that he shows the wealthy in bankruptcy cases. It does seem heartless to tell millionaires that their 2nd, 3rd or more houses are safe from seizure while telling other Americans that their one and only home is subject to all the penalties of bankruptcy.

The report and the animation cut to the heart of the problem we are facing and explained why Congress needs to act quickly. The bank lending system is slowing to a dangerous crawl. This is not just a problem that affects Wall St firms. Small businesses in cities and towns across Massachusetts and the country are being adversely affected.

Senator Kerry held a press conference in Boston today to argue the urgency of the problem. At the press conference, the Senator stated his strong support for a balanced rescue plan that puts the interests of the taxpayers first and demands accountability and oversight in the process. The legislation he supports:

• Requires the Treasury to modify the loans they buy to help American families keep their homes and expands federal assistance to families facing foreclosure;
• Includes strong Congressional oversight, establishes a special Inspector General and allows Judicial review of the program;
• Requires companies that take advantage of this program provide warrants so taxpayers will benefit from any future growth of these companies;
• Includes important limitations on executive compensation for those participating in the program.

These provisions safeguard the investment the American taxpayers are being asked to make in the financial system. There will be no "golden parachutes" of money that reward corporate executives for failure. The money the plan dispenses will be carefully watched and used as necessary to help weather the financial storm, not reward the very people who might have helped worsen the storm.

The credit crunch is a problem for the whole country, not just Wall St.  Addressing these problems honestly and quickly will help small businesses and consumers alike. As Robert Krulwich explains in the ABC News segment, the lending and credit system cannot be allowed to freeze up. Too many jobs and businesses might never recover and the problems would only get worse. Congress needs to put aside partisan politics and concentrate on actions that serve the interests of the American people.  Congress should craft responsible legislation that is not a give-away to special interests, that has oversight built into it and that keeps the interests of the taxpayers first and foremost.  That is what the American people want and expect their leaders in Congress to do. 

The last thing this debate needed was an injection of partisan politics. Americans do not want to see their financial futures sacrificed for a game of political chicken that doesn't solve anything. The people want their elected representatives to do their jobs and find solutions that begin to address our problems, not posturing and finger pointing that accomplishes nothing.

Americans want to know that their interests are first and foremost in the minds of government officials. The current turmoil is not just about derivatives and credit swaps and other distant financial terms that only investment bankers and financial gurus seem to understand. This crisis directly affects millions of Americans who are worried about keeping their homes and jobs. It's about small business owners who want to make sure they are not an afterthought in this financial battle over the interests of huge banks and financial institutions.

Small business relies on access to credit. Restaurants and small shops on Main Street need access to loans and lines of credit to get their businesses started and to keep them running. The current financial crisis threatens that flow of credit.

Senator Kerry has filed legislation that would lift some of the restrictions that are preventing small businesses from using loan programs from the Small Business Administration. Credit from private banks has become too difficult to obtain for a lot of small businesses.  The new legislation aims to eliminates some fees in certain SBA programs and increase the loan size in other programs. These actions, and others in the legislation, aim to help small businesses get what they need to weather this crisis and preserve jobs.

It is vital that we look after the interests of small as well as big business in this financial crisis.  As Senator Kerry said in remarks about his new legislation:

"If we can spend $700 billion to fix Wall Street, we should be able to help our everyday entrepreneurs who employ half of America's workforce and pump almost a trillion dollars into the economy each year," Kerry said. "These owners are suffering today because of a credit crisis that is preventing them from gaining access to the capital they need to keep running - let alone to expand their firms to compete globally."

"At the root of this mess is a lack of oversight and severe deregulation of the financial industry, causing turmoil in America the likes of which we have not seen since the Great Depression," Kerry said. "In addition to reducing fees and regulatory burdens on programs that stimulate economic growth and job creation, and improve liquidity for small banks, my proposals also increase lender oversight." 

"My changes will fill the gap left by the private sector at a time when our nation's owners and employees on Main Street are wondering why the CEOs who created this crisis are receiving a bailout when they're struggling just to keep their doors open," Kerry said. "It's essential that we bring our economy back to life, but we must do so in a way that doesn't continue to punish America's hardworking entrepreneurs for the sins of Wall Street's titans."

 

 

Investor's Business Daily and other right wing sites have started to blame the three decade old CRA for the current subprime mortgage crisis. They claim that the CRA forced banks to make loans to low-income customers who were unable to pay them back. This interference in the "free market," according to some right wing sources, is the cause of the current mortgage problems and the reason why banks, investment firms and so forth are in trouble.

 This is patently false. According to an independent study done by the firm Traiger & Hinckley LLP in a study release on January 7, 2008:

Our study suggests that without the CRA, the subprime crisis and related spike in foreclosures might have negatively impacted even more borrowers and neighborhoods. Compared to other lenders in their assessment areas, CRA Banks were less likely to make a high cost loan, charged less for the high cost loans that were made, and were substantially more likely to eschew the secondary market and hold high cost and other loans in portfolio. Moreover, branch availability is a key element of CRA compliance, and foreclosure rates were lower in metropolitan areas with proportionately greater numbers of bank branches.

The American Prospect, in an online article by Robert Gordon dated April 7, 2008, called out those who were blaming the CRA for the subprime crisis.  It noted:

The argument turns on a simple question: In the current mortgage meltdown, did lenders approve bad loans to comply with CRA, or to make money?

The evidence strongly suggests the latter. First, consider timing. CRA was enacted in 1977. The sub-prime lending at the heart of the current crisis exploded a full quarter century later. In the mid-1990s, new CRA regulations and a wave of mergers led to a flurry of CRA activity, but, as noted by the New America Foundation's Ellen Seidman (and by Harvard's Joint Center), that activity "largely came to an end by 2001." In late 2004, the Bush administration announced plans to sharply weaken CRA regulations, pulling small and mid-sized banks out from under the law's toughest standards. Yet sub-prime lending continued, and even intensified -- at the very time when activity under CRA had slowed and the law had weakened.

Second, it is hard to blame CRA for the mortgage meltdown when CRA doesn't even apply to most of the loans that are behind it. As the University of Michigan's Michael Barr points out, half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves. (With affiliates, banks can choose whether to count the loans.) Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA.

Most important, the lenders subject to CRA have engaged in less, not more, of the most dangerous lending. Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, offers the killer statistic: Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts. With this in mind, Yellen specifically rejects the "tendency to conflate the current problems in the sub-prime market with CRA-motivated lending.? CRA, Yellen says, "has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."

 There is plenty of blame to go around for the current financial crisis affecting Wall Street and the mortgage market.  The CRA, however, should not be sharing in that blame.

I think it's all Zell Miller's fault. He gave a speech that was a spittle-laced, just-short-of-unhinged attack on John Kerry last election as part of an incredibly negative GOP convention, and the convention seemed to work. John Kerry's "negatives" went up, George W. Bush took a lead in the polls, and Kerry could never catch up. It didn't matter that the attacks were mostly lies and smears against a tremendously honorable man. It didn't seem to matter that the people delivering them had no particularly redeeming qualities of warmth or grace. Mean worked.

So, the GOP went back to the well last night. But they missed the real reason why they were able to smear John Kerry so successfully. It wasn't being mean that worked, it was being on message.

Every speaker advanced the same basic lie about John Kerry, a "for it before he was against it" line designed to cover up Bush's weakness by trying to portray Kerry as indecisive and weak. The meanness, the contempt seemed tied to a specific reason for contempt of that single person they were trying to defeat. And while people may have not particularly liked Zell Miller, thought he was too mean, they were left with a lasting negative impression of JK.

Which takes us to last night. During the speeches last night, I, like many others, flashed back to 2004 and thought this may be more effective than I thought. I mean, I found the whole thing to be incredibly hate-filled and alienating, but, if it worked in 2004, then maybe it'd work again.

And then I woke up this morning, and I honestly couldn't remember a single thing they attacked about. Oh, I could recall a few specifics if I really searched my memory, but the overall impression was only, "Boy, they really hate Obama." Which, frankly, just isn't good enough as a political attack. The overriding impression is just one of anger. I remember the attackers rather than the attack. This is not good.

Especially when paired with the second impression: "they are really contemptuous of a lot of Americans." The attacks seemed not tied to a specific candidate or a specific trait in that candidate, but instead it was just a soaring, bellicose anger directed outward and egged on by the delegates in the hall.

Really, the only things that really stuck with me were the bizarre derision of community organizing and a single moment from Rudy Giuliani. Rudy said, when talking about the story of Barack Obama, "Only in America." And he used it contemptuously.

Well, you know what Rudy? Screw you. "Only in America" is one of our proudest traditions. There's a freedom to strive and achieve here that really is different than much of the world. We have had one of the most complicated and at times brutal histories of race relations of any country, and yet we now have an African-American son of a single mom as the leader of our country's majority party. That's pretty damn cool. And, yeah, it's only in America.

In the convention last night, the effect was not so much a contempt of Obama as it was a contempt for an entire vision of America, a vision that's part of the fabric of the American Dream. Community organizing, pluralism, tolerance, compassion, respect, humility, optimism, the rule of law, a self-made man, all of it was subject to a sneering derision. Unless you were white, from a small town, loved country music, and hated everyone else, there was almost nothing for you. Well, unless you are an oil exec who wants more oil leases to sit on and boost your balance sheet. Then they were chanting sweet nothings just for you.

The speech people should be thinking of is not Zell Miller, but Pat Buchanan. Buchanan's 1992 culture war-cry has been widely considered as a major factor in George H.W. Bush's defeat to Bill Clinton. It was exclusionary and angry, and it turned many people off. It was, like last night, not so much an attack on Bill Clinton as an attack on whole swaths of America.

So, forget the pundits, and forget the snap judgments. Many people in 1992 thought Buchanan's speech was a success because it "rallied the base." It was only later that the impression of an angry party intent on pushing its narrow views on the country took hold and became the lasting legacy from that speech.

I suspect that's what we'll be saying about last night in a couple of months.

update: Here's Roland Martin on CNN getting angry about the attack on community organizers:

Personal attacks on the Palin family are wrong. Senator Obama has clearly said that the children of a potential nominee should be off limits to partisan political attack. The choice of Gov. Palin for the Republican ticket is questionable on the merits of Palin's record and stated positions on the issues. Her selection raises questions about Senator McCain's judgment and the vetting process employed in selecting this Vice Presidential candidate. These are serious questions and deserve serious answers from the McCain campaign. The News Herald of Panama City, Florida had an editorial online that speaks to these concerns as well:

Media reports have raised concerns that the McCain campaign did not do a thorough job vetting Palin before she was chosen (a charge the campaign has vigorously rebutted). If the decision to tap the Alaskan was hasty, made from the gut without ample information, that makes the differentiation between Palin's experience and judgment even more acute. How deep is McCain's knowledge of the governor's performance? How much does he know about the way she made her decisions, the deals she cut and the compromises she made (or didn't make)? Is McCain confident that the initial burst of Palin stories was just the obligatory opening fanfare of media scrutiny that was to be expected, or has his campaign realized it has rappelled down a well whose bottom can't be seen?

The Los Angeles Times stated on Saturday that it found the choice of Gov. Palin, given her lack of national experience, to be a gamble for Senator McCain:

Let's be honest: The learning curve that confronts Palin is the steepest facing a vice presidential candidate in recent memory. That McCain was willing to take this gamble may not be a sign of desperation, but it gives a new and unsettling meaning to his claim to be a maverick.

The New York Times also weighed in with an editorial on Wednesday that asks what the choice of Gov. Palin says about the judgment of John McCain:

If John McCain wants voters to conclude, as he argues, that he has more independence and experience and better judgment than Barack Obama, he made a bad start by choosing Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.

Mr. McCain's supporters are valiantly trying to argue that the selection was a bold stroke that shows their candidate is a risk-taking maverick who - we can believe - will change Washington. (Mr. Obama's call for change - now "the change we need" - has become all the rage in St. Paul.)

To us, it says the opposite. Mr. McCain's snap choice of Ms. Palin reflects his impulsive streak: a wild play that he made after conservative activists warned him that he would face an all-out revolt in the party if he chose who he really wanted - Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.

The McCain campaign wants to pretend that any objections to Gov. Palin as a V.P. choice are somehow improper. Questioning the amount of time that went into this important choice and the depth of the vetting process itself is not improper. It is a way of sounding out the judgment that Senator McCain employed in making this choice. That judgment should be probed and questioned. It is a vital way to take a measure of Candidate McCain and project forward what his judgment and decision making process as President would look like. That is a very legitimate area for questions and something Candidate McCain should address.

"The people who supported Hillary Clinton are not going to be seduced just because John McCain has picked a woman," Kerry said. "They're going to look at what she supports. The fact that she doesn't even support the notion that climate change is manmade -- she's back there with the Flat Earth Caucus. I think it's almost insulting to the Hillary supporters that they believe they would support somebody who is against almost everything that they believe in'.”

One of the things that Senator Clinton strongly believes in and worked for is the idea of equal pay for equal work. Senator Clinton, along with 42 other Senators including Senator Kerry, was a Co-Sponsor of the 2007 "Fair Pay Restoration Act." The bill was introduced to reverse the obvious discrimination that Lilly Ledbetter, a Goodyear Tire & Rubber plant manager from Alabama, had received in pay in her years of employment.  Ledbetter had shown that she was paid less after 19 years as a manager at that plant than a male employee with less experience or years of service.  The courts had initially backed Ledbetter, but the Supreme Court of the United States had thrown out her case because of a technicality.

Senator McCain did not show up for the vote in the Senate on the Fair Pay Restoration Act, but he told reporters that:

"I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what's being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems," the expected GOP presidential nominee told reporters. "This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system."

 Apparently, equality is fine, as long as no one is required to pay for it. Senator McCain did magnanimously explain how he thought women should go about getting equal pay for equal work:

"They need the education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else,” McCain said. “And it’s hard for them to leave their families when they don’t have somebody to take care of them."

The solution for women who want equal pay for equal work, according to Senator McCain, is to go back to school and get more training.  Lilly Ledbetter spent 19 years performing her job as a manager at the Goodyear plant in Alabama.  Exactly how much training and experience should she be expected to get before she is paid the same amount of money as the men in her office for doing the same work? Isn't 19 years of on-the-job experience and training enough?

What does Gov. Palin think about this?  In her introductory remarks as a VP nominee, Palin talked about the "18 million cracks" that Senator Clinton and other women had put in the glass ceiling blocking opportunity for women. Does Gov. Palin believe in equal pay for equal work? Will she be the maverick that the Republicans are touting her as and call Senator McCain on his refusal to truly move forward on granting women full rights as workers in this country?

Or will she stand silently by as Republicans once again offer a "bait and switch" stance on equality for women that promises much and delivers nothing. There are indeed cracks in the glass ceiling that hold back equal opportunity for large groups of Americans.  Governor Palin should truly come out as as the force she claims to be and go to work for other" working moms" to erase the kinds of barriers of opportunity and pay that hold so many women back.  That would truly be the move of a "maverick" choice.

There is a video of Senator Kerry's speech at this link or at the home page of the www.johnkerry.com website.

The following are his remarks as prepared for delivery.

Four years ago, you gave me the honor of fighting our fight.

I was proud to stand with you then, and I am proud to stand with you now, to help elect Barack Obama as President of the United States. In 2004 we came so close to victory. We are even closer now and let me tell you - this time we're going to win.

Today, the call for change is more powerful than ever - and with more seats in Congress, with more seats in Congress, with more people with more passion engaged in our politics, and with a President Obama, we stand on the brink of the greatest opportunity of our generation to move this country forward.

The stakes could not be higher because we do know what a McCain Administration would look like.

Just like the past. Just like George Bush; and this country can't afford a third Bush term.

Just think: John McCain voted with George Bush 90% of the time - 90% of George Bush is just more than we can take.

Never in modern history has an administration squandered American power so recklessly.

Never has strategy been so replaced by ideology - never has extremism so crowded out common sense and fundamental American values. Never has short-term partisan politics so depleted the strength of America's bipartisan foreign policy.

George Bush, with John McCain at his side, promised to spread freedom, but delivered the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.

They misread the threat and misled the country. Instead of freedom, it's Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, and dictators everywhere that are on the march. North Korea can build more bombs, and Iran is defiantly chasing one.

Our mission is to restore America's influence and position in the world. We must use all the weapons in our arsenal - above all, our values.

President Obama and Vice President Biden will shut down Guantanamo, respect the Constitution and make clear once and for all, the United States of America does not torture, not now, not ever.

We must listen and lead by example because even as a nation as powerful as the United States needs some friends in this world. We need a leader who understands all our security challenges: not just bombs and guns, but global warming, global terror and global AIDS. And Barack Obama understands there is no way for America to be secure until we create clean energy here at home - not with a little more oil in 10, 20 or 30 years, but with an energy revolution starting right now!

I have known and been friends with John McCain for almost 22 years. But every day now I learn something new about candidate McCain.

To those who still believe in the myth of a maverick instead of the reality of a politician: I say, let's compare Senator McCain to candidate McCain.

Candidate McCain now supports the wartime tax cuts that Senator McCain once called irresponsible.

Candidate McCain criticizes Senator McCain's own climate change bill.

Candidate McCain says he would now vote against the immigration bill that Senator McCain wrote.

Are you kidding? Talk about being for it before you're against it!

Let me tell you, before he ever debates Barack Obama, John McCain should finish the debate with himself.

And what's more, Senator McCain, who once railed against the smears of Karl Rove when he was the target, has morphed into candidate McCain who is using the same Rove tactics and the same Rove staff to repeat the same old politics of fear and smear.

Well, not this year. Not this time.

The Rove-McCain tactics are old and outworn, and America will reject them in 2008.

So remember - when we choose a commander-in-chief this November, we are electing judgment and character, not years in the Senate or years on this earth. Time and again, Barack Obama has seen farther, thought harder, and listened better - and time and time again, Barack Obama has been proven right.

John McCain stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier just three months after 9/11 and proclaimed: "Next up, Baghdad!"

Barack Obama had the judgment to see "an occupation of undetermined length, undetermined cost, and undetermined consequences" that would "only fan the flames of the Middle East."

Well, guess what? Mission Accomplished!

So who can we trust to keep America safe?

When Barack Obama promised to honor the best traditions of both parties and talk to our enemies John McCain scoffed. George Bush called it: "The false comfort of appeasement." But today, Bush's diplomats are doing exactly what Obama said: talking with Iran.

So who can we trust to keep America safe?

When democracy rolled out of Russia and the tanks rolled into Georgia, we saw John McCain respond immediately with the outdated thinking of the cold war. Barack Obama responded like a true friend of Georgia and a statesman of the 21st Century.

So who can we trust to keep America safe?

When Democrats called for a timetable to make Iraqis stand up for Iraq and bring our heroes home, John McCain called it "Cut and Run." But today, even President Bush has seen the light: He and Prime Minister Maliki agree on - guess what? - a timetable!

So who can we trust to keep America safe?

The McCain Bush republicans have been wrong again, and again, and again. And they know they will lose on the issues.

So, the candidate who once promised a campaign of ideas, not insults, now has nothing left but personal attacks.

How insulting to suggest that those who question the mission, question the troops?

How pathetic to suggest that those who question a failed policy doubt America itself?

How desperate to tell the son of a single mother who chose community service over money and privilege that he doesn't put America first?

No one can question Barack Obama's patriotism. Like all of us, he was taught what it means to be an American by his family. His grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line in World War II. His grandfather who marched in Patton's Army. And his great uncle who enlisted in the Army right out of high school at the height of the war, and on a spring day in 1945, he helped liberate one of the concentration camps at Buchenwald.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Barack Obama's uncle is here with us tonight. Please join me in saluting this American hero, Charlie Payne. Charlie, your nephew, Barack Obama, will end this politics of distortion and division. He will be a president who seek, not to perfect the lies of swiftboating, but to end them once and for all.

This election is a chance for America to tell the merchants of fear and division: You don't decide who love this country.

You don't decide who is a patriot.

You don't decide whose service counts and whose doesn't.

Four years ago I said - and I say it again tonight - that flag doesn't belong to any ideology. It doesn't belong to any political party. It is an enduring symbol of our nation and it belongs to all the American people.

After all, patriotism is not love of power; or some cheap trick to win votes - patriotism is love of country.

Years ago when we protected a war, people would weigh in against us saying: "My country right or wrong." Our answer?

Absolutely, my country right or wrong. When right, keep it right. When wrong, make it right.

Sometimes loving your country demands you must tell the truth to power. This is one of those times, and Barack Obama is telling those truths.

In closing, let me say, I will always remember how we stood together in 2004 - not just in a campaign, but for a cause.

Now again, we stand together in the ranks, ready to fight.

The choice is clear, our cause is just, and now is our time to make Barack Obama the next President of the United States of America.

Thank you.

###

 Sen. Kerry was interviewed by the Boston Herald about his part in the video tribute and his feelings for his long-time Massachusetts Senate colleague:

In an interview with the Herald yesterday, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) - featured prominently in tke Kennedy tribute video - said of Kennedy’s 46 years in the Senate, “Every major piece of legislation in that time, he’s had an impact on one way or the other.”

Kerry, who got one of his first political jobs working for Kennedy as a volunteer at age 18, said it has been hard to watch the dire health problems of his longtime colleague and friend.

“It’s tough on all his colleagues in the Senate,” Kerry said. “He’s been a great mentor and a great teacher. I’ve learned an enormous amount."

A Message of Hope and Determination

One thing will always be extremely dear to me: A letter that my Dadima (Paternal Grandmother) wrote to me about the 1947 Partition of India and Pakistan. At that time I was in fifth grade and was really moved by it. I have saved this wonderful piece of history in a special place where I keep all of my memories. Whenever I read it, it brings tears to my eyes. I am so glad that I was curious enough about my heritage and roots to ask Dadima to write to me about it. This is truly one piece of paper that I can never give up.

The partition, the biggest forced migration in the history of the world, was an extremely frightening and difficult time for the 14 million people who faced it. I find it hard to imagine how so many innocent people could be forced to leave their homes and to suffer from such a terrible ordeal. People who had once been friends and lived side by side became enemies. My family was lucky to escape their house just as their neighbor's house was being burned in the middle of the night, unexpectedly all of a sudden. They fled for their lives, and were forced to leave everything behind--all of their dreams, their home, and everything they had.

My great grandmother, Sara, quickly wore three shirts, one on top of the other. That is the only thing she had time for. My great grandfather was lucky enough to quickly pick up his and his children's degrees and a few important documents. There were people at the front of the house ready to kill them with guns as they would try to escape. Luckily they were able to jump over the back wall of the house. How scared they must have been. Hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives in this senseless killing. They ran, they walked, and they hid in dark jungles for three and a half days. They were lucky to head in the right direction and finally arrive at the UN refugee camp at the border with the newly created Pakistan. There they had their first meal in three and a half days, a meal of lentils and half a pita bread each (daal and roti).

My family had lost everything. All they had was each other and a spirit of hope and determination. In spite of their difficulties, they never gave up. After all they had the most precious gift of all--life. With hard work, love, and understanding they rebuilt their new lives together. I am proud to say that after much sacrifice and struggle they became doctors, lawyers, business people, engineers and professionals in many other fields.

Such is the story of my family and millions of other Pakistani's. It is a story that I can never forget, a story of endless possibilities when you do not give up, a story of hopes and the dreams that came true with the new-found independence. Everyone put aside their differences and united to build their new nation, Pakistan.

But somewhere along the way, the country lost its way. We need to help Pakistan find its way again and to bring back the hope. People and nations have suffered greatly. And it is important to bring back democracy to Pakistan, peace, security, and justice for all. We must not let all the sacrifices go waste. It is time for everyone to work together and to let the hope shine through.

Short term fixes will keep us going in circles and we have seen that. It is time for us here in America to realize how important it is to develop a long term strategic relationship with the people of Pakistan. We in America just cannot afford to loose in this vital area.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was a wonderful idea in the comments section of my article "Education and Poverty in Pakistan" that every Pakistani abroad should support the education of one poor child in Pakistan. I extend this challenge to all and I would not limit this to Pakistanis and Pakistan alone. Let all of us who can, support at least one struggling child to get education in some impoverished part of the world. Remember for most people the cost will be very little. Small efforts like this can truly help to make the world a better place.

Other articles in this series:

Hope Within Pakistan-July 5, 2008
Education and Poverty in Pakistan-July 13, 2008
Women of Pakistan-July, 28, 2008

A Message of Hope and Determination-August 12, 2008

Myra Chaudhary

Myra is a junior at Brandeis University. She is majoring in Economics and International and Global Studies.

The ad in question doesn't talk about that issue or Barack Obama's stand on that issue. Kerry said, "it doesn't mention offshore drilling. What it talks about--it tries to insinuate that his celebrity is somehow all he has." That is the point.  The McCain campaign is trying to attack Barack Obama's character by bringing in questionable associations to people that have nothing to do with this Presidential campaign and nothing to do with the issues that the American people are grappling with this year.

Kerry referenced a speech that Joe Lieberman gave ten years ago on the Senate floor about morality in public discourse: "Even you, Joe, 10 years ago, you went to the floor of the United States Senate, and you said that our public life is coarsening. You said that the society's values are shrinking. That's an ad that plays to the worst instincts in America, which is to diminish someone's character."

Maybe Senator Lieberman would do well to review what he said on the Senate floor in that speech in July, 1998:

The news media, I am afraid to say, which itself has been infected by that anything-goes mentality--not always, but often infected by the anything-goes mentality pervading the entertainment culture--seems too often to fan the flames of controversy. The result is not so much an honest, engaged debate about values, but a culture war echo chamber that only heightens the average citizen's distorted sense that the country is locked in a mortal moral struggle.

We need that "honest, engaged debate" not some "cute" diversion that seeks to distort the facts on the important issues that face this country.  A campaign based on "look over here, bright shiny stuff" does not further the public debate, it coarsens it. Let's talk about the real issues that the American people face and put these negative, insulting attacks that are meant to demean the character of others on the shelf.  The country deserves better than this. 

A New Strategy Against Extremism and Terrorism
By John Kerry - July 31, 2008

I just got back from giving a speech this morning at the Center for American Progress where I tried to lay down a baseline about how you actually win the struggle against radical extremism and terrorism -- and the new mindset required to do it. I wanted to continue the conversation, and TPM graciously agreed to host it here.

Here's the deal -- we don't need a rebranding -- this isn't a semantics game -- we need a wholesale rethinking. Instead of a military-dominated "war on terror," we should be fighting the global counterinsurgency campaign it always should have been. We need to fold our military efforts to capture and kill today's terrorists into a larger "information war" designed to prevent tomorrow's from ever being recruited.

I start from the premise that our current strategy is not working. Five years ago, Donald Rumsfeld famously asked: "Are we capturing, killing, or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training, and deploying against us?" So where are we today? Attacks -- historic highs; Al Qaeda -- reconstituted along the Afghan-Pakistan border. The Taliban -- resurgent. Hamas -- tightening its grip on Gaza. Hezbollah -- running a state within a state in Lebanon. The answer to Rumsfeld's question, I'm afraid, is no -- not by a longshot.

So what does a global counterinsurgency doctrine tell us about the war on terror? What's the correct take-away?

First -- understand the real battlefield. In a local counterinsurgency, the people are the center of gravity and the core objective is to isolate the insurgents by winning the support of the local population. Applied globally, the battlefield is the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. As Defense Secretary Robert Gates said: "We cannot capture and kill our way to victory." He's right. Which is why you fight not just a military battle but an "information war." Frankly, Al Qaeda is fighting an information war - even including an online town hall meeting conducted by Ayman al-Zawahiri.

We need to fight one too.

Second -- Another core principle of counterinsurgency doctrine is that "the more force you use, the less effective it is." Those aren't my words, they're General Petraeus'. And if you read the front page article in today's Washington Post they're pretty damn close to Secretary Gates' words too. Our most important weapons are often non-military: Ironically, some of our military's most significant successes against extremists have actually been humanitarian efforts after an earthquake in Pakistan and a Tsunami in Indonesia.

Third -- legitimacy, legitimacy, legitimacy. Without legitimacy, winning over hearts and minds is impossible. That's why this Administration's embrace of torture and indefinite detention has been so self-defeating. Our enemies have already overreached in places like Anbar and Amman, and we need the moral authority to capitalize on their failures. That starts with shutting down Guantanamo and making clear once and for all that the United States does not torture. Period.

Fourth -- know your enemy. Counterinsurgency doctrine emphasizes understanding our enemy. The theorist David Kilcullen has described Al Qaeda as 60 different organizations in 60 different countries, loosely linked by a shared ideology. Taken together, these groups form a global insurgency. The goal of Al Qaeda is to draw these disparate extremists into their broader struggle against the West, sometimes with logistical support, but more broadly by offering a unifying narrative: "Islam under attack."

Fifth -- be nimble. To defeat the enemy, we must adapt as they adapt and tailor our response to circumstances on the ground. In some places, that means development projects and television broadcasts. In others, it means visits to sheikhs in their tents and - when necessary - it means Predator strikes on high value targets. We can't fight Al Qaeda in sixty countries by ourselves, and so we have to recognize the importance of strengthening relationships and working with foreign governments and security forces.

Sixth -- and finally -- we must prevent local grievances from rising to a global level and drawing small groups of disaffected people into the larger struggle. That's why we need to draw the right connections and recognize how each theater impacts the others.

Obviously -- seen through this lens, invading Iraq was a grave mistake: We diverted resources from Al Qaeda. We failed to differentiate between a secular dictator and religious terrorists and in so doing played directly into Bin Laden's hands. Our own intelligence agencies called our presence in Iraq a "cause celebre" for terrorists worldwide.

And rather than ads about Britney Spears which insult Americans, we ought to have one hell of a debate about this: The Administration misunderstood the facts Đand when it comes to events in Iraq, John McCain continues to misstate those facts and mangle history. We need to set the record straight.

Look, I've known John McCain for years as a fellow Vietnam veteran and a friend. But I just think his recent judgment has been dead wrong. We need to spell out the details here very clearly.

A quick example: as a testament to his superior judgment, John recently declared that the surge -- and I quote -- "began the Anbar Awakening I mean that's just a matter of history." In fact, history shows just the opposite.

Let's look at what happened: tensions between Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and Sunni leaders were apparent nearly two years before the surge - culminating in battles in May 2005. Why? Al Qaeda was brutal, disrespectful to tribal sheikhs, and bad for local business.

Colonel Sean MacFarland and his Ready First Brigade arrived in Ramadi in June 2006, with Al Qaeda fully in control, and - on their own - launched an extensive outreach campaign to win over the local population, starting with the local sheikhs. They emphasized getting local police forces out into neighborhoods by deputizing tribal militias. This culminated in September 9, 2006 - four months before the surge was even announced - when a young Sheikh Sittar Albu Risha declared the Anbar Awakening and created the Awakening Council. That created a snowball effect. And, as MacFarland noted, with the 2006 US election approaching "a growing concern that US forces would leave Iraq" made tribal leaders open to our overtures. By late October, nearly every tribe around Ramadi had either joined the Awakening or was openly considering it. As security improved, a major campaign was launched to rebuild Ramadi, culminating in the Ramadi Reconstruction Conference in January 2007.

For those of you keeping score, this is the point in the story where the surge actually begins. Bush announced the surge on January 10th 2007. By the time those troops arrived, Colonel MacFarland had actually rotated out of Iraq.

These aren't small details -- we can't draw the right lessons from the reduction in violence if we don't understand what actually happened: The actions that led to the Awakening reflected our understanding that U.S. military action alone would not defeat the terrorists: we needed to win over the population by co-opting the tribal sheiks, utilizing indigenous security forces, and delivering goods, services and good governance. Moreover, the reduction in violence depended on many other factors -- the sectarian segregation of formerly mixed neighborhoods, Sadr's August 2007 ceasefire, and -- with US military support -- the Iraqi security forces' success in reclaiming the streets of places like Basra from Shi'a militias.

In other words? Not merely "the surge." Not merely more troops. Counterinsurgency. When you say "the surge began the Awakening" you have it exactly backwards and you're drawing all the wrong lessons" in particular that the military can solve what are fundamentally political problems.

That's why I think there's a big choice in this election: McCain is taking a global counterinsurgency and trying to shoehorn it into the old "war on terror" rubric that doesn't do justice to the lessons our troops have learned the hard way.

The big picture is this: winning a war of ideas will not only enable us to defeat the terrorists, but will also restore our ability to affect positive change in other arenas. Let George Bush be remembered for an overly narrow militarized focus on fighting terrorism at the expense of our moral authority and our standing in the world. Let the next President fight terror by emphasizing the best about America to usher in a new paradigm of using force wisely, and in so doing allow us to emerge from this struggle stronger and better able to lead the world into the 21st century.

The National Low Income Housing Coalition (NIHLC) praised Senator Kerry for the work he did in getting the provision establishing a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund legislation through the Congress.

In 2000, Kerry wrote the first National Affordable Housing Trust Fund legislation to construct, rehabilitate, and preserve 1.5 million units of housing over the next 10 years.

"For too long, our nation's poorest citizens have gotten the short of the stick when it comes to housing. By establishing the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund we will help our most vulnerable families live in decent, safe and affordable rental housing," said Senator Kerry. "Foreclosures are devastating thousands of families across Massachusetts each and every day and this housing bill will finally help them stay in their homes and help put our economy on the road to recovery."

"The National Housing Trust Fund campaign began under Senator Kerry's leadership when he introduced a bill to establish a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund in 2000. With the enactment of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 today, together we have achieved success. The result is a renewed commitment by the Federal government to solving the housing problems of the very poorest families in our nation, who have been overlooked and neglected for too long," said Shelia Crowley, President and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

The NIHLC has been engaged in the fight to pass this legislation for years.  Sen. Kerry, as the above passage notes, filed this bill initially in the 106th Congress in 2000.  It has been a long fight to get this needed initiative passed and establish a way to help a lot of families obtain a means to get housing. This is truly a great accomplishment and it's great to see the NIHLC celebrate the passage of this needed initiative.