"Obama calls out to blacks in L.A. remarks"

LA Times:

Invoking images of Los Angeles in flames, Sen. Barack Obama argued Sunday — the 15th anniversary of the nation's most violent modern civil uprising — that little had been done to fix the chronic social and economic conditions that gave rise to a three-day rampage that killed at least 53 people.

And although the riots occurred in L.A., the conditions that spawned them persist across the nation, Obama told an overflow crowd at South-Central's First AME Church. The Illinois Democrat is seeking his party's presidential nomination.

"There wasn't anything going on in Los Angeles that was unique to Los Angeles," Obama said. "If you traveled to Chicago, you would see the same young men on street corners without hope, without prospects, and without a sense of any destiny other than ending up in prison or in a casket."

Obama drew a sustained ovation when he rebuked the Bush administration for, as Obama put it, funding the war in Iraq instead of impoverished Americans — particularly those in minority neighborhoods.

"We have now spent half a trillion dollars on a war that should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged," Obama said. "We could have invested that money in SouthCentral Los Angeles, or the South Side of Chicago, in jobs and infrastructure and hospitals and schools. Why is it we can find the money in a second for a war that doesn't make any sense?"

His speech was the most direct address on race by any of the major presidential candidates who were in California over the weekend for the state Democratic Convention in San Diego.

And it came as the major Democratic contenders are vying for African American support. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll conducted April 5 to 9 found that 41% of African American voters surveyed backed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, 34% supported Obama and 3% backed former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

Clinton, whose husband received strong African American support in both his presidential elections, made a passing reference of the riots in her speech Saturday to the San Diego convention. After mentioning "the chaos and violence in those days and the anger and despair that boiled over into the streets," she endorsed ethnic diversity and called for border policies that recognized "immigration has been and still is the lifeblood of the United States."

Edwards said in his convention speech Sunday that "if you are a man or woman of color in America today, you are more likely to live in poverty" and have a higher risk of cancer, heart disease and other problems.

"The one thing we have to be willing to face up to — and I mean head on — is that race ... plays an enormous role in what's happening," said Edwards, reprising what is for him a familiar theme. He did not mention the riots.

"We have to be honest about the problem," Edwards said. "The racial and economic segregation that exists in America is not all right."

Clinton and Edwards are white.

Obama, whose father is black and mother is white, did not mention the 1992 conflagration to the convention Saturday, but he made it the primary focus of his speech Sunday morning from the pulpit of one of SouthCentral's most vibrant African American churches.

And he touched on the frustration that has run through community meetings held in recent days to commemorate the riots, in which 2,300 people were injured and more than 1,100 buildings were damaged or destroyed after a jury acquitted Los Angeles police officers in the beating of black motorist Rodney G. King.

Obama did not offer specific proposals to solve the problems he described. His approach has more often relied on lofty rhetoric than real-world prescriptions.

In Obama's South-Central appearance, dozens of Los Angeles police officers were deployed in and around the neighborhood, and a mobile command vehicle was parked around a nearby corner.

The security contrasted sharply with the San Diego convention, where few police could be seen despite the raft of presidential contenders.

Speaking in a church that has a stained-glass window depicting the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and President Kennedy and his brother Robert, Obama recalled a news article he read at the time of the riots about a young pregnant woman shot in the abdomen, the bullet lodging in the soft tissue of her fetus' arm. After surgery, the mother and baby were fine, although the infant was left with a scar.

Obama made the infant — and the bullet — symbols for L.A. after the riots.

"Even in the midst of violence and despair, there's always something to be hopeful for. That baby represents the rising up of hope out of darkness and despair," he said.

"It made me think about us in this country 15 years later, how not only do we still have scars from that riot, but in many American cities we haven't even taken the bullet out," he said. "We still haven't stitched up the patient."

The problems were exposed again with Hurricane Katrina in 2005, he said, when countless poor people had no way to leave their neighborhoods ahead of the floodwaters. Many perished, or were left stranded on rooftops for days.

"The tragedy struck New Orleans long before the hurricane hit," Obama said, citing lowperforming schools and high levels of violence and poverty. "There's a reason why the planning to evacuate them was ineffective — because the folks who were making the planning assumed that people had cars."

The parallels to Los Angeles in the years since the riots are clear, he said: At neither time has there been sustained public interest in correcting underlying problems.

"We go from shock to trance," Obama said. "We wake up and we're surprised that there's poverty in our midst, and that people are frustrated and angry."

He mocked the creation of investigative panels to divine the causes of problems.

"There's a little bit of money that folks piece together to send it into the community to make sure that folks are quiet and go back to the status quo, but we never take the bullet out of the arm," Obama said. "We don't need panels and reports and commissions. We need some surgery on the indifference to poverty in this country."

"Fried Fish Feeds Democratic Hopes" (video)

WaPo, video (6:16):

A record crowd, including six persidential candidates eager to charm South Carolina Democrats, turned out Friday night for Rep. Jim Clyburn's annual fish fry in Columbia, SC.

"Frying Fish, Pressing Flesh" by Chris Cillizza describes the scene.

Rasmussen Reports: "National Poll: Obama 32% Clinton 30%"

Rasmussen Reports, April 30, 2007:

For the first time in the Election 2008 season, somebody other than New York Senator Hillary Clinton is on top in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows Illinois Senator Barack Obama with a statistically insignificant two point advantage over the former First Lady. It’s Obama 32% Clinton 30%. Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards remains in third with support holding steady at 17%. No other candidate tops 3%. The survey was conducted April 23-26, 2007 meaning that the overwhelming majority of the interviews were completed before last Thursday’s debate in South Carolina. The impact of the debate will be measured in polling conducted this week.

Following a surprisingly strong fundraising report released at the end of March, Obama steadily gained ground during April. The last Rasmussen Reports poll released in March found Clinton enjoying a dozen-point lead. Since then, Clinton’s support has fallen seven percentage points while Obama’s total has increased the same amount. Obama now leads among voters under 40. Clinton is strongest among those 65 and older. Clinton has a two-point edge among Democrats. Obama has a nineteen-point lead among independents likely to vote in a Democratic primary.

Last week, the two top candidates were tied at 32%. Two weeks ago, Clinton had a two-point lead. Three weeks ago, it was Clinton by five. The week before that, the former First Lady was up by seven.

A separate surveyfound that Clinton is seen as politically liberal by 52% of American voters. Forty-four percent (44%) say the same about Obama while 39% see Edwards as politically liberal. Perceptions of Clinton’s ideology have shifted a bit closer to the political center in recent months. Obama has moved in the opposite direction—more to the left.

However, while Clinton is seen as being somewhat to the left of Obama among all voters, that is not the case among Democrats. Democrats tend to view most of their leading candidates as politically moderate. Perceptions among Democrats of Clinton and Obama are very similar.

Obama and Clinton are the frontrunners, but Edwards does best in general election match-ups. He leads all GOP hopefuls and is the only Democrat to lead the Republican frontrunner, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

"What's in Your Food?": Goldy Goes National (Again)

mcjoan on Kos (page one):

Goldy at HorsesAss is on his way to doing to the FDA what he did to FEMA a year and a half ago when he exposed Mike Brownie the failed horse lawyer he was.

That story was important, but this one has far-reaching implications for everything from trade policy to farm subsidies to, most importantly, public health. What began as a unusual and highly suspicious rate of pet deaths, particularly in cats, now has become a major concern for the human food supply, as well as raising serious questions about the ability of the FDA to ensure our food safety.

News Roundup from California Democratic Convention

"California Democrats Cheer Talk They Sought 4 Years Ago" (NY Times):

When John Edwards attended the California Democratic Party convention as a presidential candidate four years ago, he was heckled with shouts of “No war” as he struggled to defend his support of the Iraq invasion. That tense weekend in Sacramento crystallized how divided Democrats were over a war that overshadowed the presidential race of 2004.

Mr. Edwards returned to the convention here on Sunday, this time as a presidential candidate firmly opposed to the war. He heard cheers when he demanded a withdrawal of the troops, and again apologized for his original position. Indeed, all the presidential candidates who spoke here Saturday and Sunday were cheered as they denounced the war, suggesting that the candidates and the Democratic base are now in line on this critical issue.

But in fact, as the weekend here made clear, the Democratic presidential field, like Democratic leaders in Congress, is divided over how to respond to President Bush’s expected veto of legislation setting a timeline for removing troops from Iraq. While the candidates and party activists agree that the war should end, they differ over how quickly troops should be withdrawn, over whether the withdrawal should be accomplished by cutting off financing for troops in the field, and over how forcefully to react to a veto.

Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York described the bill Congress passed and sent to Mr. Bush as the best possible road map to ending the conflict. In separate speeches, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton said that if Mr. Bush vetoed the bill, Democrats should try to find enough votes to overturn the veto, a prescription that — if highly implausible at the moment — was a clear winner with this crowd, probably as perfect a snapshot of the party’s liberal base as could be found anywhere in America.

If Mr. Bush refuses to sign the bill, Mr. Obama said, Democrats will find the votes “we need to end this war without him.”

He added: “We will turn up the pressure on all those Republican congressmen and senators who refuse to acknowledge the reality that the American people know so well, and we will get this done. We will bring our troops home.”

Mr. Edwards, of North Carolina, suggested another course of action to his former colleagues in the Senate. “We need the Congress to stand firm and strong,” he said. “If the president vetoes this bill, they should send him back another bill with a timetable for withdrawal. If he vetoes that bill, they should send him back another bill with a timetable for withdrawal.”

By contrast, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio all suggested that the bill being sent to the president was too leisurely in its deadlines and urged Congress to adopt even tougher legislation by cutting off financing for the war.

“Democrats need to speak loudly and clearly on this issue,” Mr. Dodd said. “The American public is so far ahead of the political leadership on this issue. They want this war over with.”

For the presidential candidates in the Senate, who must cast votes on the issue as they campaign for the presidential nomination, this is complicated terrain. At a time when Republican presidential contenders have been portraying the Democratic Party as the face of weakness in a dangerous world, Democrats are wary of supporting a bill that could be portrayed as cutting off money for the troops or forcing a precipitous end to the conflict.

Mr. Obama may be particularly vulnerable to this line of attack after the Democrats’ first debate last week. In responding to a question about what he would do as president if two American cities were attacked by terrorists, he did not mention a counterattack as an option. He later amended his remarks to say he would advocate retaliation, echoing what Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards had said in response to the question.

As it was, Mr. Obama had been attacked by Democrats on the left after suggesting almost a month ago that Congress should respond to Mr. Bush’s almost certain veto with legislation that would ensure continued financing for the troops.

Amid all the attention here to the Democratic field and its response to the war, one of the most intriguing dramas involved the return of Mr. Edwards. His speech showed how much his view of the war has changed as he tries in his second bid for the presidency to capture the support of the party’s left which eluded him in 2003.

Four years ago, Mr. Edwards was heckled here as he defended his vote in favor of the war. He presented his position as one of principle as Democrats rallied around the antiwar candidacy of Howard Dean, who is now the party’s national chairman.

“I have the responsibility to have the backbone to tell you directly what my position is and what my beliefs are,” Mr. Edwards said.

Sunday, he brought the crowd to its feet with some of the toughest antiwar language heard this weekend. He said he would withdraw 50,000 troops immediately, and remove the rest within 18 months.

“They should not back down from this president and let him continue on this terrible course in Iraq,” he said. “We have to show strength and courage. This is about life and death. This is about war.”

The sentiment of Democrats in this hall was clear from the moment the convention opened Friday through Sunday morning, when Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat of California, led the crowd in a chant reflecting a decidedly unnuanced view of what the United States should do in Iraq: “Not another nickel, not another dime, not another soldier, not this time.”

When Mrs. Clinton recounted the history of the war and asked, “What do we do now?” the crowd interrupted, shouting, “Bring them home!” before she got to talk about her idea of pressing Republicans in the Senate to join in overriding the expected veto.

"Obama wows California Democrats" (Stuff, NZ):

Barack Obama wowed California Democrats at their annual convention on the weekend, drawing a more passionate welcome than Hillary Clinton received hours earlier in this state that carries new clout in the presidential primaries.

More than 2000 party activists frequently rose to their feet in cheers as Obama, who has served just two years in the US Senate, talked about his desire to end the war in Iraq and usher in a new political era in Washington.

"It is time to put an end to this war," Obama, of Illinois, said at the convention centre in San Diego shortly before many started chanting his surname.

Even Clinton supporters recognised Obama's speech - full of generalities such as the need to "turn the page" - had tapped into the crowd's emotions.

"It was the same thing in 2003 for Howard Dean," said Andrea Dew Steele, 38, referring to the former Vermont governor who made a strong showing early in the last presidential race largely because of his opposition to the war.

"We have a very progressive left-wing constituency here in California. Obama's extremely talented, but this is Hillary's time," said Steele, who wore a Clinton sticker on her lapel.

Democrats were making their pitch to a state that has become key in the primaries since California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger last month signed a law moving up its primary to February 2008 from June to give the state a greater role in the presidential selection.

In recent years, California has served as a vital source of fund-raising, but the national contest was already decided by the time the state held its primary. New York has also moved up it primary to the same day in February 2008, which could make it the earliest and biggest test of candidates' strength.

California Democrats gave Clinton a warm if not overly effusive welcome, with a few shouting out for an immediate end to the Iraq war. "The first thing I will do upon taking office is to end the war in Iraq," Clinton said.

During her speech, a small minority held signs or called out for the US Congress to cut off funding for the Iraq conflict, a move that could undercut President George W Bush's plans to continue military involvement there.

"She is pro-war," said Patrick Tate, 59, who loudly booed the New York senator. Clinton has refused to apologise for her 2002 vote authorising the war or call it a mistake.

"I am proud that I stood up in 2002 when it wasn't popular to take a stand and urged our leaders not to take us down this dangerous path," Obama said, contrasting himself with Clinton and others. Obama was not in the Senate at the time.

Clinton, considered a front-runner in the primary contest, got cheers with calls for universal health insurance and support for what she termed the invisible people of society.

At a news conference, the wife of former US President Bill Clinton said the crucial early contests in California and New York have changed the dynamics of the campaign.

"It's added to the mix in an extraordinary way. You know, we've never had a primary process like this," she said. "It puts an enormous burden on me and my campaign. Obviously, you know we have to cover a lot more ground and raise a lot more money to be able to compete in all these states."

Caitlin Harvey, 20, a university student, said other candidates were stirring more passions than Clinton, adding she preferred Obama and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards. "Obama, he's new and fresh, he makes people excited about politics again," she said. "Hillary, she doesn't excite people as much."

"So far, vision trumps experience among Democrats" (Reuters):

As they consider filling the world's most powerful job in 2008, many Democrats appear to prefer presidential candidates with the most inspiring vision to those with the widest experience in elected office.

At their annual meeting in San Diego, more than 2,200 California Democrats gave an especially enthusiastic welcome this weekend to Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), who has served in the U.S. Senate little more than two years in his first national office.

"People are looking for fresh faces, they are looking for real change," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who has not endorsed any candidate, told Reuters. "It just shows how fed up people are."

"I think it is healthy," he said from the floor of the convention center before the crowd erupted into wild cheers as Obama was introduced.

The son of a Kenyan father and a white Kansan mother, Obama has raised lots of money and generated considerable publicity in recent months ahead of the 2008 presidential primaries despite a resume thin in historical terms.

Front-runner Hillary Clinton has worked six years in the U.S. Senate -- less than many candidates in past years -- but has years of behind-the-scenes experience as first lady in Bill Clinton's White House.

John Edwards, whom polls suggest is in third place among Democrats, served one term of six years in the U.S. Senate.

By contrast, Christopher Dodd has represented Connecticut in the U.S. Senate since 1980, and had previously worked for six years in the House of Representatives; his father was also a senator. Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware has had the same job since 1972.

Bill Richardson, now serving his second term as governor of New Mexico, was in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1982-97 and also served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and secretary of energy. To date, those three men have lagged in polls.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a long-shot anti-war candidate who has served for decades in local, then state and national government, mocked those with lesser resumes.

"It would be interesting, okay, if we put a sign in front of the White House that said 'Vacancy, 2009, no experience needed," he told reporters.

REPLACING CYNICISM

Obama has portrayed his lack of experience as an opportunity to erase cynicism toward politics.

"People tell me I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I promise you this -- I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change," Obama told delegates to cheers.

Voters have sought a fresh face in past U.S. elections -- but rivals to perceived front-runners have often had more years in public office than some of the current Democratic candidates.

Howard Dean generated early enthusiasm during the 2004 campaign, but had served a dozen years as governor of Vermont. Gary Hart represented the new voice during the 1984 Democratic primaries after nine years in the Senate.

In 1968, with public sentiment against the Vietnam War swelling, Sen. Eugene McCarthy attracted considerable attention, yet had served many years in the House and Senate.

"It's kind of outdated to think that you need that much experience," said Bill James, 42, a Silicon Valley lawyer and local Democratic activist. "The experience you gain in legislative bodies like that is different from what you need to be an effective president."

Sen. Dodd said polls today mean little as the primaries are so far in the future, although he knows the public has not always embraced a politician's long service in government.

"In almost any other race I can think of, if I stood up in front of you and said I've spent 26 years in the United States Senate, that would disqualify you immediately," he told reporters. "Having had six years on-the-job training with George Bush, I think experience is now looming as an issue that people care about."

Such thinking has yet to convince Lonnie Sanders, 65, who said he liked both Clinton and Obama. "Biden, those guys, forget it, they've had their shot," he said.

"Democrats woo voters with Bush attack" (AP):

Wooing influential California Democrats, presidential contender Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) vowed to "turn the page on this Iraq disaster" while Hillary Rodham Clinton denounced President Bush's conduct of the war as "one of the darkest blots on leadership we've ever had."

California, long a major cash source for candidates of both parties, is poised to become more influential in the electoral process as well, having moved its primary to next Feb. 5. As a result, the state Democratic weekend convention was expected to attract all the party's major presidential contenders except Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, who was campaigning in South Carolina.

Saturday's program featured appearances by front-runners Clinton and Obama, as well as Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

Clinton unleashed an unusually personal critique of Bush, accusing his administration of ignoring scientific evidence about global warming and stem cell research and lying about the effects of toxic dust at the World Trade Center site.

Her voice hoarse from days of campaigning, Clinton brought the 2,000 delegates to their feet when she said she wished she could turn the clock back to a different time.

"Somebody said to me that he wished we could just rewind the 21st century and just eliminate the Bush-Cheney administration, with all their mistakes and misjudgments," she said to cheers. "People are ready for leaders who understand it is our votes who put them in power, our tax dollars that pay the bills."

Obama, who has made his early opposition to the Iraq conflict a central theme of his campaign, told delegates he was proud to have bucked popular opinion at the time. It was a subtle but direct jab at Clinton, who voted in 2002 to grant Bush authority to invade Iraq.

He also renewed his call for the political parties to find common ground where they could and declared it was time to "turn the page" on issues like health care, education and energy independence.

But he, like Clinton, also leveled a sharp critique of Bush, saying "the president may occupy the White House, but for the last six years the position of leader of the free world has remained open." And he characterized the administration's foreign policy as "bluster and bombast."

Obama and Clinton both called on Bush to sign legislation passed by Congress last week tying funding of the war to a timeline for removing troops. Bush has indicated he will veto the bill.

Both Obama and Clinton were received warmly by the left-leaning, activist crowd — a stark contrast to the same convention four years ago, when the party was bitterly divided over the Iraq war.

There, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean — then a little-known figure in the 2004 Democratic field — thrilled delegates with his fiery denunciation of the conflict. His rivals at the time, including Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who eventually won the nomination, were loudly booed for defending their 2002 vote to authorize the war.

Clinton cast the same vote in 2002, but met with only sporadic heckling during her speech.

The New York senator also promised to "treat all Americans with dignity and equality no matter who you are and who you love." The pledge was a clear bow to California's politically active and influential gay community.

She lambasted the speech nearly four years ago, in which Bush — under a "Mission Accomplished" banner on an aircraft carrier returning to home port — declared an end to major military actions in Iraq.

That speech, Clinton said, was "one of the most shameful episodes in American history. ... The only mission he accomplished was the re-election of Republicans."

Dodd echoed the day's anti-war sentiment in his remarks.

"My friends, this is not about cutting and running," he said, accusing the White House of trying to police a civil war.

Earlier Saturday, candidates who attended South Carolina's party convention said they thought the United States has lost its global standing during Bush's presidency. America, they said, needs a Democratic commander in chief to restore its place in the world.

"We are today internationally and domestically a nation that is no longer a leader," New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said.

Former Sen. John Edwards, the 2004 vice presidential nominee, said the world needs to see that "America can be a force for good."

"What their perception is that America is a bully and we only care about our short-term interests," Edwards said. "The starting place is to end the bleeding sore that is the war in Iraq."

Richardson, Edwards and Biden said they would make ending the war a priority.

"The American people are looking for us as Democrats," said Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "They're looking for someone literally, not figuratively, to restore America's place in the world."

"Edwards remains true to his roots" (Joel Connely's column today in the Seattle P-I):

He preaches a message of social justice and is the first marquee candidate since Lyndon Johnson to stress the plight of America's poor, yet John Edwards has lived and obviously enjoyed the American dream.

"I have a blessed life now, at least in material things," Edwards said in an interview. "It's not the place I come from. I remember vividly the place that I come from."

The presidential candidate, due in Seattle and Everett on Tuesday, grew up in rural South Carolina as the son of a textile worker and letter carrier. He was the first in his family to go to college, working on a loading dock to pay the bills.

He was a vastly successful trial lawyer, persuading juries to grant huge damage judgments against makers of shoddy products.

Yet, at 53, Edwards has experienced life-challenging jolts.

The devastating death of an achieving 16-year-old son, in a freak Jeep accident, inspired a Wade Edwards Foundation to honor the boy's causes, and helped prompt Edwards to make a successful run for the United States Senate.

The recurring breast cancer of his wife and confidante, Elizabeth Edwards, produced a decision by the couple to stay on the campaign trail and homeschool their two young children on the campaign trail.

Edwards is preaching compassion, but also promising a presidency of crispness -- one that will display firing power.

The former North Carolina senator said he is "appalled" that scandals have not produced the removal of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz.

"It is the responsibility of a president of the United States to take action in the case of subordinates, whatever their position, who are not doing their jobs," Edwards said.

Edwards described as "deeply troublesome" the sudden firing of eight U.S. attorneys -- including John McKay in Seattle -- with unfolding evidence of political and ideological motives.

"It's clear the decisions to fire were based purely on political motivation," Edwards said. "Part of that motivation was their decision not to prosecute so-called 'voter fraud,' which is a code word for voter suppression.

"What they really want to do is to suppress turnout by Democrats and (minority voters) at the polls. Is that justice?"

Edwards decried what he sees as another affront to justice in America -- the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. Terrorism suspects have been held at the remote base in eastern Cuba, often without legal proceedings or access to counsel.

Edwards would shut "Gitmo" down.

"Why? It's an incredible open sore for America," he said. "We're supposed to be a great defender of civil liberties and civil rights in the world, yet we have been holding these people under very difficult conditions and not giving them a hearing."

Edwards believes one vital task of a post-Bush presidency will be to restore America's political and moral standing in the world.

"I think a new president needs to travel the world and speak to the people of the world -- not just the leaders -- about who we are as a people," he said. And, Edwards argued, America needs to "do things beyond our selfish motives." He would launch a program to provide primary schooling to an additional 100 million of the world's children.

Edwards is acutely sensitive to the subject of wealth. Sifting through the recent financial filings of his campaign, the Associated Press discovered two haircuts by Torrenueva Hair Designs of Beverly Hills. The pricetag for each cut: $400.

The candidate has since reimbursed the campaign. But the episode has brought out the snippiness of the Washington, D.C., media.

"Cosmetics are part of the equation," Chris Matthews of MSNBC intoned after Thursday's Democratic candidates debate. Edwards was asked about the haircut in the debate. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd revived a Bush campaign nickname -- "the Breck girl" -- and labeled Edwards "the material boy" in a put-down column.

"Voters don't care about this," insisted Edwards.

He shouldn't speak so fast, especially if superficial impressions are all the media provides.

Aboard the San Diego trolley on Friday night, en route to a Padres-Dodgers game, fans that recognized Edwards' name did so for two reasons.

"He's the haircut guy, isn't he?" asked a fan named Bruce Miller. A legal secretary, Janice Harwood, wondered how anybody could pay $400 to get locks shorn and shaped. Still, she added, "I really admire how they're standing up to her (Elizabeth Edwards) health situation."

Maureen Dowd is much too catty to provide context, but ... . The American presidents who took a crack at poverty, and sought to promote and shore up the middle class, have tended to be rich guys.

Franklin D. Roosevelt lived on a family estate at Hyde Park, New York. John F. Kennedy had his own plane and pilot for the 1960 campaign. Lyndon Johnson built a Texas media empire.

"Would it be better if I didn't care about the people around me?" Edwards asked Sunday.

The plight of middle-class Americans losing ground in the global economy is "critical to our security," he argued. And reviving the labor movement is "a crucial component, not just for the unions but for the country."

It's a salient message for Seattle and Everett, once blue-collar towns where the middle class is being squeezed out the door.

Note: John Edwards will participate in an AFL-CIO Town Hall Forum at noon on Tuesday, at the Machinists' Local 751 Hall, 9135 15th Place S., Seattle. He will hold a second forum at 2 p.m. at Everett Community College.

"Barack Obama’s “Turn the Page” Speech Wows California Democratic Convention" (UPDATED)

UPDATE: Here's the video, see if you agree with the description below.


California Progress Report:

"We are just one signature away from ending this war" ignites crowd--Departing from his stump speech, Barack Obama had the California Democratic Convention spellbound for 23 minutes as he appeared with State Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero, State Assembly Majority Leader Karen Bass, and San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris and urged them and all Californians to “turn the gage for hope” and to write the next chapter in history. He made reference to the strong women in his life and thanked them for their support. Thanked Steve Westly, the outgoing California State Controller and candidate for the Democratic nomination for governor, who also appeared on the stage, and then delivered his remarks.

True to rock concert form, delegates and observers were sitting in the aisles in front of the stage and many stood at the sides of the stage. He was interrupted frequently with standing ovations, especially when he said "We are just one signature away from ending this war."

As you will see from reading his speech, he introduced himself to those watching inside and out of the convention hall and gave a very personal account of his life before talking about why he is running for President.

Here is a copy of his prepared remarks, although if you get a chance to see the speech (it should be available online and we will include the link when it is available) you need to do so to get the full flavor.

"Murtha Uses The “I” Word" (with video)

Crooks and Liars (with video):

On Sunday's "Face The Nation" Democratic Congressman, John Murtha talks to Bob Schieffer about the Iraq spending bill and the President's theatened veto. Murtha points out that Congress has given the President billions of dollars more than he requested and that the American people have spoken and they want out of Iraq. He then goes on to list ways to influence a President and one of those ways is impeachment.

Murtha: "There are three ways - four ways to influence a President, and one is popular opinion, the elections, third is impeachment and fourth is-is uh, fourth is the uh-uh the purse."

Schieffer: "Are you seriously talking about contemplating an impeachment of this President by Congress?"

Murtha: "What I'm saying is there are four ways to influence a President -"

Schieffer: "And that's one of them?

Murtha: "One of them is impeachment -"

Schieffer: "That's an option that is on the table?"

Murtha: "I'm just saying that's one way to influence a President. The other way is the purse and the purse is controlled by the Congress who is elected by the public and in the last election the public said we want the Democrats in control."

Think Progress covers his appearance from another angle.

"Top Democrats Strain to Keep Pace"

WaPo:

SAN DIEGO, April 28 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) appeared here without her husband this weekend, but she did bring one of his trademarks: a hoarse speaking voice.

Clinton said she was fighting a cold. But at a news conference after her speech to the California Democratic Party Convention on Saturday, she acknowledged that the front-loaded 2008 primary schedule is putting a strain on her candidacy.

Having California, New York and other big states move up their primaries to Feb. 5 "puts an extraordinary burden on me and my campaign," Clinton said, a rare acknowledgment of stress from one who has sought to look as if she finds campaigning a breeze.

"You know, we have never had a primary process like this," she said in response to a question about the earlier-than-ever California contest. "We're all trying to figure out how to manage the resources, the time, the organizational challenges." She quickly added: "But I'm excited that California is moving up like it has decided to do."

With the first primary votes at least nine months away, the top-tier candidates in both parties have been traveling at a breakneck speed, cramming cross-country fundraising and campaign swings into their days off.

The past week was an especially grueling one for those Democratic candidates in the U.S. Senate. They voted Thursday on a war spending bill, then rushed to South Carolina for the first debate of the campaign that night. They then headed west for the California state convention, a major gathering of Democrats with a history of shaping the race (in 2003, it helped propel former Vermont governor Howard Dean).

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) flew from Columbia, S.C., to San Diego for his speech, making an energetic entrance down the center aisle of a convention center packed with screaming delegates. "Oh, I am fired up now," Obama said by way of opening.

But he has a long week ahead: He was to travel to Los Angeles late Saturday, attend a church service there Sunday, fly to Chicago that afternoon and then to Dallas on Monday before returning to Senate business Tuesday. Obama travels to New York, Baton Rouge and Detroit within the week. And he warned the Californians in the crowd that his speeches may not be so smooth in the days ahead.

"There will be times when I get tired. There will be times when I make a mistake," Obama said. "If you don't believe me, talk to my wife -- she'll tell you. But this campaign we're running is not about me: It's about you."

Clinton, after sparring with her rivals for 90 minutes on Thursday night, flew back to Washington before making the nearly six-hour trip to San Diego, where she arrived after midnight Saturday. Former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) is planning to appear before the conventioneers Sunday morning.

Despite her scratchy voice, Clinton delivered a forceful address to California delegates, repeatedly referring to her future presidency as a done deal.

"All across this country, people are telling me they're ready for change," Clinton said. "Somebody said to me he wished he could just sort of rewind the 21st century, just eliminate the Bush-Cheney administration with all their misstatements and misjudgments." She added: "It is our country they are running, and we are tired of them believing that they can have a country of the few and by the few and for the few. Those days have got to end."

"Well, I am here to tell you that if you are ready to change, I am ready to lead, and I will need your help," she said.

Several weeks into the second fundraising quarter, Clinton also said that as president she would look into ways to enforce public financing of elections -- including, potentially, a constitutional amendment. Clinton was headed Saturday night to Silicon Valley, with stops in Reno and Los Angeles planned before her return trip to Washington.

Howie P.S.: I think someone was straining to come up with a headline.

"Obama vows to 'turn the page' on Iraq"

AP:

Wooing influential California Democrats, presidential contender Barack Obama vowed to "turn the page on this Iraq disaster" while Hillary Rodham Clinton denounced President Bush's conduct of the war as "one of the darkest blots on leadership we've ever had."

California, long a major cash source for candidates of both parties, is poised to become more influential in the electoral process as well, having moved its primary to next Feb. 5. As a result, the state Democratic weekend convention was expected to attract all the party's major presidential contenders except Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, who was campaigning in South Carolina.

Saturday's program featured appearances by frontrunners Clinton and Obama, as well as Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

Clinton unleashed an unusually personal critique of Bush, accusing his administration of ignoring scientific evidence about global warming and stem cell research and lying about the effects of toxic dust at the World Trade Center site.

Her voice hoarse from days of campaigning, Clinton brought the 2,000 delegates to their feet when she said she wished she could turn the clock back to a different time.

"Somebody said to me that he wished we could just rewind the 21st century and just eliminate the Bush-Cheney administration, with all their mistakes and misjudgments," she said to cheers. "People are ready for leaders who understand it is our votes who put them in power, our tax dollars that pay the bills."

Obama, who has made his early opposition to the Iraq conflict a central theme of his campaign, told delegates he was proud to have bucked popular opinion at the time. It was a subtle but direct jab at Clinton, who voted in 2002 to grant Bush authority to invade Iraq.

He also renewed his call for the parties to find common ground where they could and declared it was time to "turn the page" on issues like health care, education and energy independence.

But he, like Clinton, also leveled a sharp critique of Bush, saying "the president may occupy the White House, but for the last six years the position of leader of the free world has remained open." And he characterized the administration's foreign policy as "bluster and bombast."

Both Obama and Clinton were received warmly by the left-leaning, activist crowd — a stark contrast to the same convention four years ago, when the party was bitterly divided over the Iraq war.

There, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean — then a little-known figure in the 2004 Democratic field — thrilled delegates with his fiery denunciation of the conflict. His rivals at the time, including Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who eventually won the nomination, were loudly booed for defending their 2002 vote to authorize the war.

Clinton cast the same vote in 2002, but met with only sporadic heckling during her speech.

The New York senator also promised to "treat all Americans with dignity and equality no matter who you are and who you love." The pledge was clear bow to California's politically active and influential gay community.

She lambasted the speech nearly four years ago, in which Bush — under a "Mission Accomplished" banner on an aircraft carrier returning to home port — declared an end to major military actions in Iraq.

That speech, Clinton said, was "one of the most shameful episodes in American history. ... The only mission he accomplished was the re-election of Republicans."

Dodd echoed the day's anti-war sentiment in his remarks.

"My friends, this is not about cutting and running," he said, accusing the White House of trying to police a civil war.

Earlier Saturday, candidates who attended South Carolina's party convention said they thought the United States has lost its global standing during Bush's presidency. America, they said, needs a Democratic commander in chief to restore its place in the world.

"We are today internationally and domestically a nation that is no longer a leader," Richardson said.

Edwards, the 2004 vice presidential nominee, said the world needs to see that "America can be a force for good."

"What their perception is that America is a bully and we only care about our short-term interests," Edwards said. "The starting place is to end the bleeding sore that is the war in Iraq."

Richardson, Edwards and Delaware Sen. Joe Biden said they would make ending the war a priority.

"The American people are looking for us as Democrats," said Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "They're looking for someone literally, not figuratively, to restore America's place in the world."

"SATURDAY, APRIL 28th IMPEACHMENT DAY!"

From Seattle World Can't Wait:

National Impeachment Day!

There will be many groups participating in this ACTION

starting at 1:00 PM - 4:00 PM on Saturday April 28th!

PLEASE MAKE AND 

BRING AN IMPEACH! SIGN and join us at these overpasses;

*World Can't Wait will be at the 45th St and 50th St overpasses in the 

University District !

*The Eastside Fellowship of Reconciliation will be at the 520 overpass

off of 92nd! Website (copy/paste the address into your address bar);

http://eastsidefor.org/for/index.php

*The Backbone Campaign will be at Roanoke Ave. & I-5 

which is the overpass right before I-5 crosses bridge to
U-dist.! Website here

*Rob Gould and friends will be on the walking bridge over Rainier Ave! 

(where Rainier Ave & Martin Luther King Way intersects in front of

Franklin High School)

 More groups will be at  Pine St, Olive Way,

Denny, and more throughout Seattle!!! 

THEN - at 5:00 pm we will converge on the North & South ends

of Safeco Field and hand out IMPEACH! Balloons!! 

Please note:  

Apparently
The AM1090 Air America affiliate was sent this strange note from the WA State
Police and/or the Seattle Police stating that anyone on overpasses
with banners would be subject to arrest. They stated these laws; 

WAC 468-66-020 RCW 9.66.010 RCW 9A.52.080

Here is that letter;

It's interesting to note that whether this letter is authentic 

and whether the laws stated are applicable to tomorrow's action or not

 - the WA State Patrol/Police has never enforced them on the people

 who hold vigils and banner daily at the Fort Lewis overpass with 

their pro-Bush and pro-war signs.

They also have never before enforced these 'laws' until this week! 

THIS IS A DIRECT ATTEMPT to INTIMIDATE ALL OF US & IS A 

VIOLATION OF OUR 1st AMENDMENT RIGHTS! 

Will we cower in the face of this?

The Backbone Campaign here have already contacted a lawyer, they were
threatened with arrest earlier this week during their regular bannering they
do on Wednesday mornings. They were NOT given a choice of being
ticketed: they were told they would be taken straight to jail!

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! 

THE BACKBONE CAMPAIGN, WORLD CAN'T WAIT, AND THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD 

WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT IT IS LEGAL TO HOLD A BANNER WHILE

WALKING ON A HIGHWAY OVERPASS!

What we need is some outcry from people on the un-constitutional
behavior of the Police!

We have contacted the ACLU and they have given us the following advice:

Everyone needs to call the Office of Professional Accountability at:

206-615-1566

And let them know that we intend to STAND UP FOR OUR RIGHTS! 

That we will pursue every avenue should

our rights be infringed upon by the police.

We are asking people who can to act as observers and to

film and record any arrests that are attempted tomorrow!

We are truly living in a police state!!

WILL WE COWER IN THE FACE OF RIGHT WING 

AND UN-CONSTITUTIONAL INTIMIDATION?

HELL NO!

WE ARE GOING AHEAD WITH

OUR PLANS!

That which you don't resist you will learn --or be forced --to accept!!

"Fired U.S. Attorneys Will Meet in Seattle"

WaPo:

Normally, anything labeled "public policy forum" in the e-mail in-box gets automatically deleted here at Capitol Briefing, especially when it's being hosted in the "other" Washington, way out in Seattle.

But when it's a public policy forum on U.S. attorneys hosted by none other than John McKay, Capitol Briefing takes note!

McKay, the ousted U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington, is now a visiting professor at the Seattle University School of Law. On May 9 he's hosting a pair of his fellow fired federal prosecutors for a forum on the mass sackings last year.

Joining McKay will be David C. Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney for New Mexico, and Paul K. Charlton, the former prosecutor for Arizona. McKay, Iglesias and Charlton are three of the most controversial firings of the eight ousted prosecutors, because they were either conducting sensitive investigations of Republicans or under fire for not prosecuting Democrats around the time of their dismissals on Dec. 7. All three were also contacted by members of Congress or their staff at a sensitive time regarding ongoing criminal corruption investigations.

The four-hour symposium could spark sharp criticism of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the White House for alleged politicization of the Justice Department. One session is titled: "The 2007 Experience -- Myths and Realities: explanation of the current incidents, with comparison of historical similarities and differences."

McKay told the Senate and House Judiciary committees in early March that the chief of staff to Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) contacted him in early 2005 to inquire about alleged Democratic voter fraud in the 2004 gubernatorial election. McKay said he cut off the staffer -- Ed Cassidy, who now works for Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) -- before Cassidy ventured into inappropriate talks about an ongoing case.

Iglesias testified that Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) called him in the weeks before Wilson's razor-thin reelection last November. Iglesias said he felt pressured him to bring indictments against Albuquerque Democrats.

And Charlton has been in the news this week because of reports that his office was also contacted by a staffer about a probe, this one an ongoing corruption investigation of the aide's boss, Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.).

Hastings and Cassidy deny the call to McKay was inappropriate. Domenici and Wilson admit they called Iglesias but deny pressuring him, although Domenici acknowledges he asked about the corruption case and has apologized for the call. Renzi has denied any wrongdoing and today issued a statement to Roll Call denying rumors of his retirement.

McKay's legal eagle panel also includes two law professors who've been highly critical of the political nature of the Justice Department under President Bush.

James Eisenstein, a law professor at Penn State and author of a book on U.S. attorneys, told The Washington Post's Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein that it was "very unusual" for Gonzales to appoint so many of his own top aides to the federal prosecutor outposts around the country.

And Laurie L. Levenson, professor at Loyola Law School, testified before Senate Judiciary Feb. 6 that "the increasing politicization of federal law enforcement" was having a "devastating impact on the morale" in U.S. attorney's offices around the nation.

Incidentally, former Rep. Rick White (R-Wash.), one of three finalists to replace McKay, may want to attend the legal forum -- and not just to learn of the travails of being a federal prosecutor. White isn't allowed to practice law in Washington because he still needs 20 to 30 "continuing law education" credits. While White can't practice law, he has run a TechNet, a large high-tech lobbying association in Washington. And he's been a GOP donor, including $1,000 checks the past two election cycles to Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.), the lawmaker who forwarded White's name to the White House for consideration.

But Luckily, according to the press release for the symposium, lawyers can get 3.5 credits for their required continuing legal education to maintain their law license.

"Moderator Hurls Mostly SPIT Balls In First Democratic Presidential Candidate Debate" (UPDATED)

UPDATE: Media Matters says "MSNBC debate questions on Iraq, immigration, and national security based on false premises." And Crooks and Liars ridicules one of Williams' questions about ‘Modern day extinction’ of the Democratic party.
Democrats.com:

After listening to the questions asked by Brian Williams in South Carolina at the first debate of announced Democratic presidential contenders, one has to wonder how much worse the moderation would have been if it had been on the Fox Network.

There was hardly an inane smear, knock, superficial or unfair attack made against any of these candidates that Williams did not go OUT of his way to highlight or demand that they defend themselves against. We had the price of haircuts, misquotes about positions on Palestine, ties to Walmart, not to mention an entire segment on Giuliani's despicable "die under Democrats" rhetoric from yesterday, instantly elevated to the status of accepted mainstream gospel and framed as such. If most of the questions had been prefaced with the words "Karl Rove says" their slant could not have been more obvious. Even the questions selected from viewer emails seemed to be selected with that criteria in mind.

When Williams was not doing that he left no stone unturned trying to dredge up a virtual laundry list of every possible divisive wedge issue he could work in, positions on abortion, guns, illegal immigration, and even the confederate flag. The few other actual issues touched on were exploited as an opportunity to hurl other accusations, for example on the health care issue one of stealth tax raising intentions. The energy issue he tried to turn into an Al Gore, how dare you own a light bulb witch hunt, and so on.

And in his grandstand play of the night Williams painted a grim scenario of two American cities wiped out by Al Qaeda and demanded to know how each of these candidates would retaliate. The question itself was custom designed to drive fear into the heart of what deserved to be a thoughtful debate on the issues, and to substitute blind ignorant rage for sound policy. It had to be TWO cities of course because we've ALREADY lost one and a half cities under George Bush. The question begged the answer of what kind of revenge would you take, as if revenge were a policy goal. How fitting from the mouthpiece of a company in the nuclear weapons business.

To their credit each of the candidates demonstrated in turn that they are infinitely more qualified to be president of the United States than Bush ever was, and managed for most part to say what they wanted to say, as opposed to what Williams was trying to bait them into saying. We only wish one of them had called him out directly on the slant of the questions, especially the Giuliani smear.

Williams made one huge mistake, trying to embarrass Kucinich about his Cheney impeachment stance, and Kucinich hit it out of the park with some of the best passion we've heard from him yet. Likewise with Gravel, where Williams practically chortled at the chance to pick a fight on stage between the candidates, but instead gave Gravel his own moment to shine as an uncompromising antiwar choice.

What we NEED to do is take the debates out of the hands of right wing spin kings and get some moderators who aren't so bent on warping the whole affair. It's hard to imagine as long as self-interested corporations are the sponsors. But at least tonight our candidates were able to hold their own.

Howie P.S.: The "debate" reminded me of the time I saw one of the Beattles on The Tonight Show (a long time ago, when they still were the Beattles). The format of that network show shrunk their stature way down to a small size. Between the "cattle call" size of the group and the problems addressed above, I think the event diminished the candidates, as a group and individually.

"The Great Wall of Segregation..."

Riverbend:

…Which is the wall the current Iraqi government is building (with the support and guidance of the Americans). It's a wall that is intended to separate and isolate what is now considered the largest 'Sunni' area in Baghdad- let no one say the Americans are not building anything. According to plans the Iraqi puppets and Americans cooked up, it will 'protect' A'adhamiya, a residential/mercantile area that the current Iraqi government and their death squads couldn't empty of Sunnis.

The wall, of course, will protect no one. I sometimes wonder if this is how the concentration camps began in Europe. The Nazi government probably said, "Oh look- we're just going to protect the Jews with this little wall here- it will be difficult for people to get into their special area to hurt them!" And yet, it will also be difficult to get out.

The Wall is the latest effort to further break Iraqi society apart. Promoting and supporting civil war isn't enough, apparently- Iraqis have generally proven to be more tenacious and tolerant than their mullahs, ayatollahs, and Vichy leaders. It's time for America to physically divide and conquer- like Berlin before the wall came down or Palestine today. This way, they can continue chasing Sunnis out of "Shia areas" and Shia out of "Sunni areas".

I always hear the Iraqi pro-war crowd interviewed on television from foreign capitals (they can only appear on television from the safety of foreign capitals because I defy anyone to be publicly pro-war in Iraq). They refuse to believe that their religiously inclined, sectarian political parties fueled this whole Sunni/Shia conflict. They refuse to acknowledge that this situation is a direct result of the war and occupation. They go on and on about Iraq's history and how Sunnis and Shia were always in conflict and I hate that. I hate that a handful of expats who haven't been to the country in decades pretend to know more about it than people actually living there.

I remember Baghdad before the war- one could live anywhere. We didn't know what our neighbors were- we didn't care. No one asked about religion or sect. No one bothered with what was considered a trivial topic: are you Sunni or Shia? You only asked something like that if you were uncouth and backward. Our lives revolve around it now. Our existence depends on hiding it or highlighting it- depending on the group of masked men who stop you or raid your home in the middle of the night.

On a personal note, we've finally decided to leave. I guess I've known we would be leaving for a while now. We discussed it as a family dozens of times. At first, someone would suggest it tentatively because, it was just a preposterous idea- leaving ones home and extended family- leaving ones country- and to what? To where?

Since last summer, we had been discussing it more and more. It was only a matter of time before what began as a suggestion- a last case scenario- soon took on solidity and developed into a plan. For the last couple of months, it has only been a matter of logistics. Plane or car? Jordan or Syria? Will we all leave together as a family? Or will it be only my brother and I at first?

After Jordan or Syria- where then? Obviously, either of those countries is going to be a transit to something else. They are both overflowing with Iraqi refugees, and every single Iraqi living in either country is complaining of the fact that work is difficult to come by, and getting a residency is even more difficult. There is also the little problem of being turned back at the border. Thousands of Iraqis aren't being let into Syria or Jordan- and there are no definite criteria for entry, the decision is based on the whim of the border patrol guard checking your passport.

An airplane isn't necessarily safer, as the trip to Baghdad International Airport is in itself risky and travelers are just as likely to be refused permission to enter the country (Syria and Jordan) if they arrive by airplane. And if you're wondering why Syria or Jordan, because they are the only two countries that will let Iraqis in without a visa. Following up visa issues with the few functioning embassies or consulates in Baghdad is next to impossible.

So we've been busy. Busy trying to decide what part of our lives to leave behind. Which memories are dispensable? We, like many Iraqis, are not the classic refugees- the ones with only the clothes on their backs and no choice. We are choosing to leave because the other option is simply a continuation of what has been one long nightmare- stay and wait and try to survive.

On the one hand, I know that leaving the country and starting a new life somewhere else- as yet unknown- is such a huge thing that it should dwarf every trivial concern. The funny thing is that it’s the trivial that seems to occupy our lives. We discuss whether to take photo albums or leave them behind. Can I bring along a stuffed animal I've had since the age of four? Is there room for E.'s guitar? What clothes do we take? Summer clothes? The winter clothes too? What about my books? What about the CDs, the baby pictures?

The problem is that we don't even know if we'll ever see this stuff again. We don't know if whatever we leave, including the house, will be available when and if we come back. There are moments when the injustice of having to leave your country, simply because an imbecile got it into his head to invade it, is overwhelming. It is unfair that in order to survive and live normally, we have to leave our home and what remains of family and friends… And to what?

It's difficult to decide which is more frightening- car bombs and militias, or having to leave everything you know and love, to some unspecified place for a future where nothing is certain.

"Debate Night"

Political Wire:

Eight Democratic presidential candidates meet for the first debate of the 2008 primary season at South Carolina State University. The 90 minute debate starts at 7:00 pm ET and will be broadcast on MSNBC and will be streamed live over the Internet.

The Orangeburg Times and Democrat notes the lineup, from left to right on the stage: Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson.

While many of the candidates have appeared on the same stage this year, this is the first full-fledged debate where they can respond to one another. The State reviews the debate format.

Of course, the "expectations game" where "rival campaigns build up the skills of their opponents while downgrading their own candidate's verbal abilities" has started, according to the AP. "That way, any bright moments make a performance seem like a home run."

Meanwhile, Republicans launched a major public relations effort to counter the Democratic message coming from South Carolina tonight.

"Cantwell demands Gonzales' resignation"

Seattle P-I:

Murray has not decided on course of action--Sen. Maria Cantwell demanded Wednesday that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resign, saying his "appalling" firing of former U.S. Attorney John McKay and his evasive testimony have stripped him of his ability to serve effectively.

"I am convinced that Gonzales has not carried out his duties as attorney general with a blind eye and a balanced hand," Cantwell, a Washington Democrat, said in a statement. "He has served as the president's lawyer, not our nation's. Because of this, Alberto Gonzales must resign, and the president must accept his resignation immediately."

In asking Gonzales to resign, Cantwell joins a growing number of Democrats and Republicans who say he can no longer lead the nation's premier law enforcement agency. Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., called on Gonzales last month to resign.

A spokeswoman for Sen. Patty Murray, meanwhile, said Murray has not yet demanded Gonzales' resignation. Spokeswoman Alex Glass said Murray voted against confirming Gonzales but is awaiting the results of an investigation into the firing of the U.S. attorneys before deciding what action to take.

Cantwell, who voted against confirming Gonzales in 2005, said she had trouble believing that President Bush's friend and former White House counsel could operate independently.

"I raised concerns about Gonzales when he was first nominated to this position, and nothing I have seen since then has convinced me that my fears were unjustified," she said.

"From supporting warrantless wiretapping, making decisions about the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, or firing U.S. attorneys, time and again Gonzales has shown he is more committed to the pursuit of a political agenda than the rule of law."

Cantwell added: "In reviewing both Gonzales' record as our attorney general and in reviewing his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have found evidence that he has routinely served political and ideological objectives, rather than the best interests of the nation."

While even Republicans abandon Gonzales, he retains Bush's support.

"The attorney general went up and gave a very candid assessment, and answered every question he could possibly answer, honestly answer,' " Bush said Monday, referring to Gonzales' April 19 appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Howie P.S.: Joe Conason goes even farther (or it further?), with "A Gonzales resignation is not enough."

Howie P.P.S.: In other human resources news about the Bush Administration, "John Edwards calls on Bush to fire Rove." Looking at the competence and integrity of this group, is there anyone who shouldn't be fired? Submit your nominations below.

Dean: "Bar media and candidates will talk"

AP:

The head of the Democratic Party said Wednesday that the best way to get presidential candidates to talk frankly about issues is to lock out the media.

During the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, a banker expressed frustration with candidates who only talk in sound bites and wondered how that could be changed. Howard Dean, once a presidential candidate, offered a simple solution.

"I suggest you have candidates in to meetings like this and bar the press," Dean said.

The Democratic National Committee chairman criticized media coverage, arguing that networks such as CBS used to put content first and didn't mind losing money for the prestige of delivering a quality news report. Dean said the days of Walter Cronkite are gone and the corporatization of the media has led to a desire to boost profits.

"The media has been reduced to info-tainment," Dean said. "Info-tainment sells, the problem is they reach the lowest common denominator instead of forcing a little education down our throats, which we are probably in need of from time to time."

National Press Club President Jerry Zremski lashed out at Dean for suggesting barring the media.

"Has Dean read the First Amendment? The Founding Fathers knew that a free press is central to the free flow of information to the citizenry — and that the free flow of information is the very foundation of a democracy. Repressing media is a tactic one expects from totalitarian regimes, not democracies," Zremski said.

Dean was considered a strong contender for the 2004 Democratic nomination, but after finishing third in the Iowa caucuses, he gave a speech that included a rant punctuated by a scream. The clip was shown repeatedly on television and became the subject of late-night jokes.

Dean said politicians live in fear that their words will be twisted for the sake of headlines.

"Politicians are incredibly careful not to say anything if they can possibly help it, except if it is exactly scripted. And if you want to hear anybody's true views, you cannot do it in the same room as the press," Dean said. "If you want to hear the truth from them, you have to exclude the press."

Mavis Staples "Eyes On The Prize" (video)

This video (4:05) reminds me that evil is no quitter.

"John Edwards -the Mill Village Kid" (with video)

OneCarolinaGirl's diary on Kos:

Since John Edwards has made no secret of his modest beginnings as a mill village kid we thought it would be great if blue collar kids circled the wagons for John Edwards.

Check out the site. http://www.MillVillageKidsforEdwards.com If you grew up in a blue collar family, please join in supporting our 'mill village kid' John Edwards in his move to the White House. It isn't just for mill village kids, but all blue collar kids...coal miners kids, steelworkers kids, dishwashers kids, all blue collar kids. It is a way of telling America that blue collar workers and their kids do matter. There is no time commitment beyond what you want to commit periodically looking over the site. There is a place to share your favorite working class type photos, or make comments too. Be sure to join and show your support today. Remember when parents told their children 'It's more important "what" they are than "where" they came from?' Just look WHAT you can become and WHO you can become'!

Here's a video of our most famous Mill Village Kid going back home.

"Campaign Trail Mix 2"

Darcy Burner (video, 1:49):

Second in a series of behind-the-scenes looks at running for the U.S. House of Representatives.

Howie P.S.: Among many other things, this video features exclusive footage of the Kingston-Edmonds ferry line, with "Video and editing by Darcy Burner" (herself). I'm jealous because she gives horsesass.org a plug, not that David&co aren't completely plugworthy.

"Obama Speaks to the Chicago Council for Global Affairs" (with video)

Barack Obama.com (video, 2:57) April 23, 2007:

"...for the last six years the position of leader of the free world has remained open."

Matt Stoller hosts a discussion of the speech on MyDD. Full text here.

"Obama’s Rise Strains Loyalty on Clinton Turf"

NY Times:

Only a few months ago, the vast majority of black elected officials in New York were expected to support the presidential candidacy of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. But no longer.

In a series of interviews, a significant number of those officials now say they are undecided about whether to back Mrs. Clinton or one of her main rivals for the Democratic nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the only black politician in the race.

The officials described themselves as impressed with the strength of Mr. Obama’s campaign in recent weeks, saying it reflected a grass-roots enthusiasm for Mr. Obama that many noticed among black voters in their own districts. And that could signal trouble for Mrs. Clinton, forcing her to devote precious attention to her home state, where blacks made up 20 percent of the Democratic primary vote in 2004, just as she has had to scramble to keep black support nationwide.

Facing a potential drift of black support, the Clinton campaign has recently taken several steps: dispatching former President Bill Clinton to speak before black and Hispanic lawmakers in Albany earlier this year, and then to address the Rev. Al Sharpton’s group, the National Action Network, in New York last week; using Bill Lynch, who was a top political adviser to former Mayor David N. Dinkins, to corral black support in New York City; and enlisting heavyweights from the black political establishment like Representative Charles B. Rangel, Democrat of New York, to help Mrs. Clinton court black leaders.

Many black New York officials have strongly supported Mrs. Clinton — not to mention her husband, starting with her first Senate campaign in 2000, when she was still in the White House and had only just established residency in the state.

But these officials said it had become increasingly clear to them that Mr. Obama, who has barely campaigned in New York, is no mere flash in the pan, and seems to possess the public approval ratings and campaign war chest needed to compete in a presidential contest.

“I would have supported Hillary if it were not for Barack Obama,” said Assemblyman Adam Clayton Powell IV, a leading figure in Harlem who said he had yet to make an endorsement. “He can identify with my African-American community in a way that no other candidate can.” Assemblywoman Crystal D. Peoples, who represents Buffalo, and who has been contacted by one of Mrs. Clinton’s top political lieutenants, said she was similarly divided. “It’s a very difficult decision,” Ms. Peoples said. “I’ll really do a lot of soul-searching on this one.”

Assemblyman N. Nick Perry, Democrat of Brooklyn, said many black politicians were mindful of what happened in 1988, when overwhelmingly large numbers of black primary voters in New York supported the presidential candidacy of the Rev. Jesse Jackson, to the surprise of black politicians who supported his rivals. He said that “there was a lot of atoning that had to be done” afterward among those politicians.

“This is bigger than Jesse Jackson,” Mr. Perry, who remained undecided, said of Mr. Obama’s candidacy. “When you look at Obama, his potential seems quite explosive.”

It is still early in the campaign, and Mrs. Clinton, whose political operation is aggressive and wide-reaching in the state, has plenty of time to consolidate her support among black New York leaders.

Speaking on behalf of the Clinton campaign, Representative Gregory W. Meeks, Democrat of New York, acknowledged that Mr. Obama had stirred “an element of ethnic pride” among black elected officials. But in the end, Mr. Meeks said, Mrs. Clinton’s years of experience in the White House and in the Senate gave her an edge over Mr. Obama.

Perhaps the most important figure working to round up black support for Mrs. Clinton has been Mr. Rangel, the leading elected official in New York’s black political establishment.

Mr. Rangel, of Harlem, an early and important supporter of Mrs. Clinton’s first Senate campaign, invited black leaders in Upper Manhattan to a meeting in recent weeks, where Mrs. Clinton made a direct appeal for their support — even as she took a moment to praise Mr. Obama, according to one person who attended the event.

Assemblyman Keith L. T. Wright of Harlem, who attended the meeting and is undecided about the race, said Mr. Rangel “feels ownership” in Mrs. Clinton because of his past association with her and was “working overtime” to round up support for her presidential campaign.

“That’s quite formidable,” Mr. Wright said, referring to the clout Mr. Rangel brings in championing Mrs. Clinton’s cause.

And yet Mr. Wright, who is close to Mr. Rangel, acknowledged that “there is some conflict” among black leaders now that there is a choice between Mrs. Clinton, a longtime ally, and Mr. Obama.

“I’m certainly undecided right now,” Mr. Wright said, adding that Mr. Obama’s “candidacy is making me quite proud.”

In an interview, Mr. Rangel sought to play down the situation, and pointedly noted that he did not know of any elected official in New York who had actually endorsed Mr. Obama, though he acknowledged that Mr. Obama had substantial support in the state based on the money he has raised there.

“Everyone I talk with supports her,” said Mr. Rangel, who talks up Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy in television and radio appearances and who attends fund-raisers on her behalf. “I don’t know Obama supporters in New York.”

As for black leaders in New York who have not already backed her, Mr. Rangel seemed to suggest it was just a matter of time before they did. “There are a lot of people who are just waiting for her to ask them,” Mr. Rangel said, referring to Mrs. Clinton. But the fence-sitting among these black leaders is a potentially troubling sign for Mrs. Clinton, who, like Bill Clinton, has long enjoyed considerable support among blacks, who are a crucial component of her home-state base.

The vacillation among black leaders in New York was all the more striking as neither Mr. Obama nor his advisers appeared to be spending much, if any, time in the state trying to round up their support before the Feb. 5 primary.

Indeed, many of the leaders interviewed said they had not heard from Mr. Obama or officials in his campaign, though the state had moved its primary to the first Tuesday in February from the first Tuesday in March.

Mr. Obama even turned down a recent invitation to address the New York State Legislature’s black and Hispanic caucus. Still, in some cases, the political leaders said they had been hearing from constituents who support Obama.

Assemblyman Jeffrion L. Aubry of Queens said he had not endorsed Mrs. Clinton, though her camp had reached out to him, while Mr. Obama’s had not. He said that while Mrs. Clinton was “connected in special ways to the minority community,” Mr. Obama’s candidacy had profound appeal as well.

“His presence as a legitimate black politician ata national level brings a certain pride,” Mr. Aubry said. “It makes you have to make a choice.”

State Senator Kevin S. Parker, Democrat of Brooklyn, said he thought the “vast majority” of black leaders in New York would have already backed Mrs. Clinton if not for Mr. Obama.

“I do share the view that it has been complicated by Senator Obama’s presence,” Mr. Parker said, of the decision about whom to endorse. “I think people are split.”

Even Mr. Rangel, in the interview, acknowledged having “a lot of racial pride and identification” with Mr. Obama’s candidacy, and noted that he had actually encouraged Mr. Obama to run for president.