- Obama chose to speak about economic justice, which is the reason why Dr. King was in Memphis 40 years ago to support a sanitation workers strike. Speaking about the strike Obama said, "It was a struggle for economic justice, for the opportunity that should be available to people of all races and all walks of life. Because Dr. King understood that the struggle for economic justice and the struggle for racial justice were really one - that each was part of a larger struggle "for freedom, for dignity, and for humanity." So long as Americans were trapped in poverty, so long as they were being denied the wages, benefits, and fair treatment they deserved - so long as opportunity was being opened to some but not all - the dream that he spoke of would remain out of reach."

- Obama said that the struggle for economic justice that is continuing today, "But while those sanitation workers eventually got their union contract, the struggle for economic justice remains an unfinished part of the King legacy. Because the dream is still out of reach for too many Americans. Just this morning, it was announced that more Americans are unemployed now than at any time in years. And all across this country, families are facing rising costs, stagnant wages, and the terrible burden of losing a home."

- He continued, "Part of the problem is that for a long time, we’ve had a politics that’s been too small for the scale of the challenges we face. This is something I spoke about a few weeks ago in a speech I gave in Philadelphia. And what I said was that instead of having a politics that lives up to Dr. King’s call for unity, we’ve had a politics that’s used race to drive us apart, when all this does is feed the forces of division and distraction, and stop us from solving our problems."

- One gets the sense that Obama understands the leadership role that his position has thrust him into on the issue of race, but he doesn’t want to become labeled as the black candidate, so he is aware that he has to maintain a balance between holding a racial discussion while being above labels.

His CTO’s main duty would be to make sure that government holds open meeting, and records live webcasts of those meetings. Obama also wants to use blogging software, and open comments, so that policy can be communicated with the American people. He also wants the public to be able to comment on the White House website for five days before any legislation is signed. Obama also wants to increase federal support for extending broadband to rural areas. He would do this by only making subsidies available to carriers who offer both phone service and broadband to rural areas.

There are other more standard pieces to Obama’s plan, but my interest is in the idea that technology can be used to open up the executive branch’s actions to greater accountability. After eight years of the most secretive, and deceptive administration in modern memory, the idea that the president serves the people and the people deserve to see what their president is doing, is a breath of fresh air. Something tells me that this is an idea that secretive, and in its own way manipulative, Clinton campaign won’t be embracing any time soon.

Imagine, a president that actually wants to know what the American people are thinking. What is this world coming to? If we aren’t careful, we may someday have a president who is interesting in serving all the American people, not just those who voted for him or her. I am not only tired of living under the rule of an administration that treats truth as optional, and we the people as group that is a unavoidable inconvenience, but I am tired of contentious and bitter election campaigns, and a nation that is split 50/50.

One of the reasons why, I can’t support Hillary Clinton is that she is the most polarizing figure in American politics. Clinton represents a continuation of the divided America. Swapping Clinton for Bush is akin to two Fortune 500 companies swapping CEOs. Certainly there will be some differences, but they are both members of the same elite club, who seem to share a common view of the concept of how a president interacts with the nation. I am not an Obama supporter, but I believe that any of the other Democrats will bring more change than Clinton. Like most Americans, I think that I am looking for a fresh voice with new ideas, and I find the idea of a president that is interested in the American people very refreshing.

Be sure to check out our interview with Obama Iowa Communications director Josh Earnest at www.blogtalkradio.com/thepoliticaluniverse

We have a special guest on TPU radio tonight at 8:00 PM (ET). The Iowa Communications Director for the Barack Obama campaign, Josh Earnest will be our guest for the entire half hour. Josh will be on hand to talk about Iraq, Iran, the war on terror, the economy, and the crisis in the housing industry. You can listen to the show live at www.blogtalkradio.com/thepoliticaluniverse Sorry, but we won’t be taking listener phone calls this time, but if all goes well, we will invite Josh back before the Iowa caucuses to take your calls.

I hope that you can tune in.

Jason Easley (TPU Radio Host)

So far, $603 billion has been appropriated for the wars. Of this amount $533 billion has been given to the Department of Defense for military operations. $2 billion has been spent for Veterans Administration war related benefits. $30 billion has been spent to train Iraqi and Afghan security forces; $39 billion has been spent on reconstruction, and additional $3 billion on veterans’ medical care. The projected cost would be an additional $570 billion under the 30,000 troop scenario from 2008-2017. For the same time period, the 75,000 permanent troops would cost $1.055 billion.

If that wasn’t enough to blow your mind, it is estimated that the indigenous security forces in each country will cost an additional $50 billion. They will also require $26 billion more in foreign aid from 2008-2017. The really depressing estimate is that debt service for the money borrowed to pay for this war is expected to cost the American tax payer $415 billion from 2001-2017. Remember, this is just the interest payment on the money that was borrowed to finance this war. Depending on the size of the permanent forces, debt payments could rise to $175-$290 billion from 2008-2017. The total estimated cost of these wars will be $1.9-$2.4 trillion.

According to the U.S Treasury Department here is the exact amount of U.S. debt the month Bill Clinton left office, $5,728,739,508,558.96. As of yesterday, October 23, 2007, the U.S. deficit stood at, $9,057,981,725,122.80. If the war spending estimate is correct, the U.S. government will continue to dig its taxpayers a hole that they will never be able to get out of. Remember, both the top two Democrats, and all the Republicans want to leave troops in Iraq. These numbers aren’t based on hundreds of thousands, but tens of thousands of troops.

There are many reasons to be against this war, but the fact is that Americans will be paying for this folly in the Middle East for at least a generation to come. America has had a greatest generation, a counterculture generation, and me generation, I think now we had better start getting ready for the impoverished generation. That or we all had better hope that the Chinese don’t come calling for payment on this war debt.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=8690&type=0

 The bill as currently drafted directs civil courts to drop all lawsuits against telecommunications companies that were in essence spying on their customers and turning over data to the government. Suits would be dropped if the attorney general certifies that the companies assisted the government in terrorism investigation. Cases would also be dropped if the attorney general certified that companies did not assist the government in terrorism investigations.

“Like most of his promises, President Bush's inauguration day pledge to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution has been folded away and forgotten. From torture to secret prisons and wiretapping, this administration systematically has stripped away or ignored many of the most basic rights and principles upon which this nation was founded. This unprecedented assault on American laws and values, cloaked falsely and irresponsibly in the guise of national security, must be stopped,” Richardson said.

Richardson criticized the Senate for this compromise. "Incredibly, the Senate stands on the verge of abetting another Presidential outrage by considering a bill that would grant immunity to telecommunications companies that admitted to assisting the government in spying on American citizens by disclosing personal information. This bill must not pass.”

He also took Clinton and Obama to task for saying that they don’t support the bill, but still leaving the door open to vote for it. "We need strong leadership to prevent this latest injustice, not equivocation or political calculation. Senators Clinton and Obama say they will oppose the bill, but are leaving the door open to a potential compromise. There can be no compromise on personal rights and privacy. I urge my Democratic primary opponents, and every Senator, to stand up and state loudly and clearly -- without any equivocation -- that he or she will not pass any bill that grants retroactive immunity to companies that willingly aided the Bush administration in violating the law and spying on our own people.”

The White House claims that they will veto the bill without the immunity provision, but why shouldn’t the telecommunications companies be taken to court? Why do they get a free pass here? Could it be because the communications industry gave $70 billion to candidates in both parties last year, or maybe because they have already given $28 billion this year? According to www.opensecrets.org ,68% of their contributions this year have gone to Democrats.

The communications sector is the fifth largest donor to the Clinton campaign, and it is not surprisingly the fifth largest donor to the Obama campaign. No wonder the two Democratic frontrunners are so willing to compromise on this issue. The telecommunications companies would stand to lose millions upon millions if they lost in court.

President Bush is trying to protect big business, and an industry that went along with his administration’s illegal plans, but there is no good reason for Democrats to accept this compromise. Richardson is correct the Democratic Party and their top presidential candidates need to place personal rights and privacy ahead of campaign contributions.

John McCain continues to hang around. He is now three points behind Romney and at 12%. However, McCain better watch his back because Mike Huckabee has been slowly climbing in this poll and is now sitting at 8%. A win in Iowa by Huckabee could propel him into contender status, but Huckabee still has no money and would have to rely on socially conservative Republicans to fuel his support. I think Giuliani’s 29% last week was a bit of an aberration. Giuliani has been pulling in the 19%-23% range for three months now, so 25% is just a tad above his normal range. Giuliani is still far from a consensus frontrunner, but so far only Thompson has shown the ability to challenge him in this poll.

Mitt Romney has settled into a solid third, and wins in Iowa and New Hampshire would definitely make this at least a three person race. McCain also needs a win in New Hampshire, as he has pretty much put all of his chips into this one last gasp gamble. Thompson is probably going to win in South Carolina, and Giuliani will do the same in Florida. Outside of a potential strong Ron Paul showing in Iowa, none of the other remaining Republicans have much of a chance. In this week’s poll, Paul is at 2% with Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter at 1%. The number of undecided Republicans continues to slowly drop. This week it is at 17%.

I still think that is unlikely that Mike Huckabee will be able to win the nomination, but he has made a national name for himself and would make a fine running mate for any of the top three Republican candidates. As last night’s Fox News debate illustrated, this race is already turning particularly nasty. You can be certain that tempers will continue to rise as votes are cast and the nomination remains up for grabs. I don’t think any of these candidates can consolidate the national base a build a consensus big enough to earn them the nomination. No one should be surprised if the Republicans head to their convention without a nominee.

www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_republican_presidential_primary

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/weekly_presidential_tracking_polling_history

However Democratic Congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are having an absolute field day with the idea that Bush won’t fund more health care for poor children, but he will spends a couple of hundred billion dollars per year on war. "For the cost of less than 40 days in Iraq, we could provide health care coverage to 10 million children for an entire year,” Pelosi said. Harry Reid said in statement, “President Bush wants us to rubber stamp another $200 billion in war funds – all borrowed money, none of it paid for – for next year alone.  But when we sent a bipartisan CHIP bill to his desk to provide health insurance for the children of working families, the President called it too expensive.  Let’s remember, every dime of the money for CHIP was paid for.”

Pelosi once again called for an end to the war. “The choice is between a Democratic plan for responsible redeployment of our troops and the President’s plan to spend another trillion dollars for a 10-year war in Iraq.  We must end this war.” Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards suggested that if the Democrats in Congress really wanted to end the war, then they should cut off funding.

"Enough is enough. The American people voted for change last November and now, almost a year later we still have the status quo. Once and for all Congress must stand up to President Bush and pass a funding bill with a timetable for withdrawal. If the president vetoes that bill, Congress must send it back, again and again, as many times as it takes for the president to finally get the message that he can't defy the American people,” Edwards said.

I think Edwards is right. Congress has been completely gutless on the war. Pelosi and Reid continue to talk a good game, but at the end of the day, they always continue to fund the war. They could easily ignore Bush’s request, and not act on it, or reject it outright. The problem is that most Democrats, Clinton and Obama included, are afraid of being labeled unpatriotic, so they continue to campaign against this war while still funding it. The Democratic Party has completely let down the American people on the issue of Iraq.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071022-8.html

http://speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0371

www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20071022-timeline-for-withdrawal/>

http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=285781&>

Today Rasmussen Reports released their first poll of the Iowa Democratic caucus. This poll provides more evidence of the national growing trend of Democratic voters rallying around frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton. Clinton leads 33%-22%-21% over John Edwards and Barack Obama. These numbers reveal that Clinton has gained even more support than in last week’s The Des Moines Register poll that showed her with a seven and eight point lead over Edwards and Obama. In that poll, Clinton led 29%-23%-22%. While Edwards and Obama only shifted by a point, Clinton gained four points in the new Rasmussen poll.

In fourth place is Bill Richardson at 7% and in fifth is Joe Biden with 4%. Biden has announced that it will take a fourth place finish or higher for him to stay in the race after Iowa. Clinton leads in Iowa with both men and women. She leads among women, with 39% support, and she leads Edwards with men 28%-24%. Clinton leads Obama among liberals 29%-24%. Obama leads with those who make more than $75,000 a year, and Clinton leads with voters who make less than $40,000 a year. John Edwards leads among those who make $40,000-$75,000 a year. In this category, Edwards leads Clinton and Obama, 29%-28%-21%.

Clinton and Edwards both have favorability ratings of 82%. Obama was given a 78%, Richardson a 63%, and Biden a 51%. Not surprisingly, Clinton even leads when the sample is limited to those who said that they were absolutely certain that they are going to vote. Her support falls to 31% among this group, but she is still eight points ahead of the competition. If Clinton continues to build momentum in the Hawkeye State, then it is doubtful that she will be denied the Democratic nomination.

Democratic voters are drawn to Clinton not because of anything that she has said or done. They seem to be supporting Clinton because they genuinely think that she can win, and the fond memories that they hold of her husband’s administration. One of the major failings of her Democratic opponents has been that they have not even tried to separate Clinton from her husband’s legacy. They have allowed her to embrace and run on her husband’s record, virtually unopposed. Right now, I think only a scandal or major mistake will keep Hillary from the nomination. Iowa looked to be her last major hurdle, and she has now put herself in a position to win there too.

For Rudy Giuliani, this week is a six point improvement. His increasing support possibly came from a solid, if not spectacular, debate performance. Compared to Thompson, Giuliani definitely looked like the stronger candidate. This is the first time that Rudy has been this close to 30% support since May 1. I don’t think this bump for Giuliani came from anything he did, but represents more of what Thompson and Romney didn’t do. Speaking of Mitt Romney, he is third in this week’s poll at 14%. This is a small one point drop from last week, but it is right in the 10%-15% range that Romney has been pulling all year.

In fourth, still sits John McCain at 10%. McCain’s campaign is in the red, and he rolling the dice on a last gasp bid to recapture his 2000 magic in New Hampshire. So far McCain is running a strong third there, but without a win, his campaign is likely over. In fifth Mike Huckabee gained a little ground, and is now at 7%. Huckabee is currently in fourth in Iowa, and he needs a top tier finish to keep his presidential campaign alive. It is possible that Huckabee could pass McCain for fourth, but that would require him to break double digits in this poll, which he hasn’t done all year.

Sam Brownback and Ron Paul have each separated themselves from the bottom pack and are now at 2% and 1% respectively, which is good for sixth and seventh place. Heading up the rear are Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo who each had their totals rounded up to 1%. Sixteen percent of Republicans remain undecided.  Brownback has already announced that if he doesn’t finish in the top four in Iowa, he will drop out of the race. I would expect Tancredo and Hunter to drop out then as well.

Overall, the GOP race is still unclear. Romney should win in Iowa, and he might win in New Hampshire. Thompson looks strong in South Carolina, and Giuliani should win in Florida. He also could catch Romney in New Hampshire. Each of the top campaigns is using a different strategy early in the race, but the Giuliani campaign is poised to take off on February 5, 2008. The Republican nomination fight looks like one that might go across the country, and not be settled until the convention.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, “I am pleased that the House passed legislation to extend the ban on taxes on Internet access.  By voting to continue the tax moratorium, the House will help promote innovation, affordable Internet access, and broadband services for American consumers and businesses. It is critical that the Senate now act on this bipartisan legislation ahead of the Internet access tax moratorium’s expiration on November 1.  Americans must not face a toll road when they get on the information superhighway.”

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) expressed some disappointment that the ban was not made permanent. “I’m pleased the ban has been extended, but the majority missed a golden opportunity to permanently shut the door on Internet taxation. Banning Internet taxation would benefit American consumers and small businesses, encourage greater economic growth, and create more American jobs. A strong bipartisan group of members support a permanent ban, yet House Democratic leadership has refused to schedule a vote on the bill.”

He also speculated that at some point in the future, the Democrats want to the Internet. “Since 1998, when Congress first banned Internet taxation, House Republicans have made repeated attempts to permanently eliminate the threat of a web tax. This stands in stark contrast to the actions of Democratic leaders, who have ignored repeated, bipartisan calls to bring the permanent tax ban to the floor. 242 Republicans and Democrats support a permanent ban. The refusal by Democratic leaders to bring this bill to the floor not only thwarts the will of the House, but it also is a clear sign that they are not serious about keeping the Internet tax-free.”

Boehner is using some seriously faulty logic here. The reality is that neither Democrats, nor Republicans want to tax Internet access. What is going on here is that the Democrats did not want to hand the Republicans a victory on an issue the year before an election. My guess is that if a Democrat is in the White House, the next time this comes up for a vote, then the ban will pass. I don’t care if they keep extending or making it permanent. All I know is that allowing states to tax Internet access would be a disaster for everyone.

This is really bad news for her top two rivals for the nomination Obama and John Edwards. After gaining three points last week, Obama dropped three points, and returned to his baseline level of support. Obama’s support has ranged 21%-23% in nine of the past eleven weeks. Despite his best efforts at closing the gap on Clinton, her lead continues to grow. Edwards has seen a bigger drop off in his support. He has gone from a baseline level of support in the mid teens to now polling 11% this week. Edwards’s support has either been flat or declining in each of the past five weeks. His campaign has the look of one on life support. He must win in Iowa, or his campaign is probably finished.

Among the other Democratic candidates, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson remains in fourth at 4%. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is fifth at 3%. In sixth at 2%, is Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE). Tied for seventh is Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Mike Gravel, who both poll 1%. The number of Democrats who say they are undecided continues to drop. This week only 8% of those polled were undecided. It seems that the undecided voters, who make up their minds, are supporting Clinton.

What I have seen for weeks in this poll is evidence that Democratic voters are unifying around Hillary Clinton. She is the only Democratic candidate who has consistently expanded her base of support. It doesn’t matter what she says, or doesn’t say, she continues to gain support. Much like the John Kerry phenomenon in 2004, many Democrats have decided to rally around the candidate that they view as most electable early in the process. I don’t think enough Democrats have really thought about, if Hillary Clinton is their best choice. Barring some sort of self induced implosion, it looks like Clinton has a solid grip on this nomination.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/weekly_presidential_tracking_polling_history 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_democratic_presidential_primary

Jason Easley is the politics editor at www.411mania.com/politics His column The Political Universe appears on Tuesdays and Fridays.

Jason is also the host of TPU Radio, which can be heard at www.blogtalkradio.com/thepoliticaluniverse every Sunday morning at 11 AM ET.

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards marked the fifth anniversary of the Congressional vote to give President Bush the authorization to use force in Iraq by laying into Democratic frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton.

“Five years ago tonight, Congress voted to authorize the president to use force against Iraq.  Unlike Senator Clinton, I have apologized for my vote in support of that bill. This war has become one of the greatest disasters of American foreign policy. In light of the terrible mistruths that permitted this president to guide our nation to war, voters have a right to honest answers and straight talk from those running for president. That is why I have made it clear that I oppose the Iraq war, why I have offered a specific plan on how I will end this war as president, and why I have made my position very clear on Iran,” Edwards said.

He then said that Clinton has no plan to end the war in Iraq. "Unfortunately, political rhetoric aside, Senator Clinton has no specific plan to end the war in Iraq.  Instead, she refuses to commit to a specific timeline for withdrawal and has made it clear that she will continue `combat missions' in Iraq. The Washington Post reports today that Senator Clinton has described multiple missions that would require us to keep combat troops in Iraq--from protecting the Kurds to countering the Iranians to training Iraqi troops to protecting oil to a vague need to `protect our interests.'  These missions would just be excuses to justify continuing George Bush's failed strategy in Iraq.”

He also painted a picture of Clinton giving Bush the first step towards war with Iran. "Now, we are again facing another challenge: whether to let the president go to war with yet another country, Iran. Evidently, Senator Clinton and I learned two very different lessons from the Iraq war.  I learned that if you give President Bush even an inch of authority, he will use it to sanction a war. As the New Yorker recently reported, the administration is actively preparing plans to attack Iran.”

Edwards continued, “Despite this clear evidence, Congress recently passed a bill to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, a bill Senator Clinton supported and that takes this nation one step closer to war. While Senator Clinton tries to argue both sides of the issue, the truth is her vote opens the door for the president to attack Iran. I believe we must not allow the president to use force against Iran when so many other diplomatic and economic options are still available."

Edwards’s Iran comments echo similar ones made today by Barack Obama. "Now, the Senate has once again voted for an amendment that goes out of its way to draw connections between distinct threats, and that replaces judicious policy-making with unnecessary saber-rattling. And once again, we hear that it is not really a vote for more war, it is a vote for more diplomacy," Obama said.

It seems that both Edwards and Obama are trying to correctly paint Clinton as a triangulating candidate that will vote for any bill or talk out of both sides of her mouth if that is what it takes to get elected. The reality though is that unless many Democratic voters see through her smokescreen of nostalgia, none of these attacks by Edwards are going to harm the Clinton campaign. Many Democratic voters are seeing what they want to see in Clinton, instead of the manipulating politician that she really is.

Richardson wants to create a national service program to help students pay for college. "As President, I will create a national service program that pays for two years of college in return for one year of service," Richardson said. "We need more college graduates, and we need more men and women who are willing to serve their fellow citizens. The spirit of service that fought the Nazis in the forties and sustained the Peace Corps in the sixties still is alive and well in America today."

The New Mexico governor said that he would pay for his plan by cutting the Pentagon’s budget. "The vision I have outlined is bold and comprehensive," Richardson said. "It also is expensive. Unlike the timid plans of others, mine is a $60 billion investment in our nation's future. To those who ask how we can afford it, let me be specific. I will cut billions of dollars in loan subsidies to private banks and lenders. Furthermore, last week I outlined a detailed plan for defense modernization that saves $57 billion by cutting Pentagon waste and outdated, unnecessary weapons systems, many of which were designed for the Cold War. I issue a challenge to each of my opponents: be bold and be specific. Follow my lead and tell America how you will make our education system the greatest in the world."

I have no problem with education plans as long as leave the control of education in the hands of state governments and school boards. Richardson deserves props for saying that he would get rid of the terribly misguided No Child Left Behind. A program that teaches standardized tests is not the solution. However wouldn’t Richardson’s plan be better if instead of giving matching federal dollars for arts programs, the money was used for math and science programs? He is willing to hire more teachers, so why not reward districts that create new programs?  

Universal pre-K is a standard Democratic desire. This plan has lots of bells and whistles, but I really don’t see how it addresses the needs of our current system. Richardson has devised a plan than tinkers around the edges, but does not deal with the fundamental shortcomings in curriculum, and teacher availability, and not just in math and science, that plague many districts. The federal government could be doing more to help states and districts, but instead of real help all too often they are given political shell games like NCLB. Richardson’s plan is on the right track, but it still misses on some of the key issues.