TJ Walker, AmericanLP founder and CEO talks to Robert Levin, the foreign policy analyst for AmericanLP about Us policy toward Iran as it relates to the Presidential election.
Immediately after the 2004 presidential election results came in many political analysts floated the notion that the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that required the state to enact marriage equality was responsible for George Bush's re-election. The hypothesis was that the anti-marriage equality initiatives on the ballot energized the right to turnout and they helped push Bush over the top. That theory was roundly rejected by the actual exit polling data. Unfortunately that myth still lives on and is influencing political analysis to this day. Today it appeared in Peter Schrag's column in the Bee, which was picked up by Boi from Troy and subsequently linked by Marc Ambinder in the Atlantic.
Given its hot-button nature in an election season, there must be a lot of Democrats, from the presidential candidates down, who are hoping that the court follows Jerry Brown's pleadings. To this day, a lot of people believe that the 2003 decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court striking down that state's ban on same-sex marriages was a major factor in the defeat of John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.
Schrag really needs a phrase in there that recognizes that while people continue to believe that myth, it has been disproved. It is something the bloggers, particularly kos harped about, but did not make it very far into the mainstream, despite the numerical evidence.
(This could be the first time that all three top Democrats are in California on the same day. Plus there's this endorsement from one of our finest Representatives. - promoted by David Dayen)
I wanted to share some exciting news with you, as today I announced my endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States.
Like so many Americans, I first heard Senator Obama when he delivered his electrifying speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. Deep down, I knew I'd witnessed history in the making.
Barack Obama represents a bridge to the future. He embodies the hope and new direction that our country so desperately needs. As I've watched Senator Obama campaign for the Presidency, I am convinced that he is a real agent of change; a man who can lead our nation in a new and positive direction.
Really fabulous write-up in Slate this morning about how the GOP proposition to change how our electors are determined (i.e. the plan to steal 20-22 electoral votes) is unconstitutional:
"In Article II, Section 1, the Constitution declares that electors shall be appointed by states "in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." That's legislature. California's could scrap its current winner-take-all approach and adopt a district-by-district system for allocating electors (as only Maine and Nebraska currently do). But the voters-whom the initiative supporters have turned to because they don't have the support of the Democratic-controlled legislature-cannot do this on their own."
The more people know this the more likely it is to die a final death. "You can vote for it but all you'll be doing is costing the state a lot in legal fees while it gets challenged all the way up to the supreme court!" is a pretty good argument against voting for it.
.First of all, I'd like to thank the Edwards campaign folks for setting up the meeting for us. It was really nice to get a chance to talk with somebody who is obviously an incredible woman. No matter what political bent or who you support, she is clearly a courageous and intelligent woman. In this picture, you see (L to R) Elaine Santore , Beth Spotswood, Sasha, Paul Hogarth, Mrs. Edwards, Julia Rosen, and myself
Sasha at Left in SF has a really good recap post of the entire day, including a really cool shooting-down of Bob Shrum's book by telling the reporters to go to youtube. Here's the video. But, I've got the video of the meeting, so you can see it in its entirety (um, hopefully soon, stupid computer...).
She addressed a litany of issues, including her husband's Senate record, the Iraq war, and economic/poverty issues. She had a very long speaking engagement, and she seems to be holding up remarkably well. I'm quite amazed that anybody, let alone a woman battling cancer, has the stamina to keep the kind of schedule that she's keeping.
But it's time the method we use in selecting nominees bear some resemblance to how we elect them. It's time the polyglot cities and the great exurban tracts gain a voice commensurate with their importance to the nation.
And it's time that our candidates get tested early by broader electorates. Was it really good for the country that South Carolina's Republicans put an effective end to the battle between George W. Bush and John McCain so early in 2000, on Feb. 19 to be exact? Was it helpful that the Democratic battle between Al Gore and Bill Bradley that same year effectively ended after New Hampshire voted on Feb. 1, or that John Kerry wasn't tested harder in more places after his Jan. 27, 2004, victory there? ... The legislatures in those states should ignore the complaints and let their people join the action.
