Not In My America

Asking citizens “Where are your papers?” We are better than that
Rep. Connie Mack (R-FL) wrote, “I do not want to live in a nation where American citizens are asked, ‘Where are your papers?’ We are better than that.” Arizona’s new immigration law strikes deep at the heart of American values of freedom and fairness. Watch this video and then share it with your friends on Facebook and Twitter.

This campaign is sponsored by CAP Action and SEIU.



The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Attorney General Holder: My Goals for The Department of Justice

Attorney General Eric Holder, Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden and Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli discuss the mission and history of The Department of Justice. They have a tough task ahead of them to clean up the mess the Bush Administration left behind, and restore the nation's faith in the Department of Justice.

The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Youth Vote Overwhelming in Obama's Victory -- and Coatails to the Democrats

Youth voters (ages 18-29) didn't just rock the vote, they moved mountains this election year. And, as absentee and early voting ballots continue to get counted, the turnout totals continue to rise. CIRCLE now estimates that:

-- 23 million young voters went to the polls on November 4th -- an increase of 3.4 million over 2004.

-- Youth turnout will likely top off somewhere around 52-53 percent. That rivals the 1992 turnout, and will likely fall just short of the all time record of 55.4percent set in 1972.

-- Young voters accounted for 60 percent of the overall voter turnout increase.

-- CIRCLE still estimates that young voters made up 18 percent of the total electorate. This contrasts with the typical voting heavyweight -- seniors ages 65+ -- who comprised 16 percent of last week's voting public.

Take a look at this great electoral vote map, which pictorially shows how the country's youth tilted. Note that it would have been an even more lopsided Obama win if youth voters had anything to say about it. In fact, Obama's staggering 66-32 percent margin among youth voters likely did decide the election. Well, that and the 7-point gender gap in Obama's favor. Women, young people, and the overwhelming minority voter turnout made the difference.

Time for a Tea Party on the Potomac: On Election Day, DC Demands the Vote

Tomorrow's the big day. The Election Day we've all been waiting for, the one that couldn't come soon enough -- if only to cease the endless commercials, robocalls, and shredding of trees for campaign fodder. Those of you lucky enough to live outside the boundaries of the District of Columbia will also be electing House and Senate candidates in addition to a president. Lucky you. I'm soooo jealous.

As a resident of our nation's capital, I'd like to take this opportunity to remind the rest of the country that while DC votes will help to send the next guy to the White House, the same folks who go to the ballot box in the District today have no voting representation in Congress.

Really. It's true. Taxation without representation is alive and well and being inflicted upon the denizens of Washington, DC. Imagine my surprise, moving here as I did to work on Capitol Hill, to find that my newly-minted DC driver's license also instantly disenfranchised me. Yeah, yeah -- we have a non-voting Delegate, but Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) is only allowed to vote in committee and then only if she doesn't cast the tie-breaking vote. In other words, she only gets to vote when it can't make a difference. She has no vote on the House floor whatsoever -- she's not allowed to vote on amendments or legislation, even final passage.

Meanwhile, DC residents -- many of whom are also, ironically, involved in politics like myself -- have no senators whatsoever. Well, we have a "shadow" senator who has even less clout than our non-voting delegate -- at least Norton gets a salary and has a staff. The District of Columbia, in other words, has the same congressional status as Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. But, um, those folks DON'T PAY TAXES to the United States Government. DC residents do.

How can this be, you ask? Well, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a recent decision, said it's because DC is not a state. The justices were sympathetic to our plight, I'll give 'em that -- but the U.S. Constitution says only states get Congressional representation. So, the only alternative is for DC to become a state, or to amend the Constitution to allow DC representation without statehood.

There has also been this fairly silly compromise that was voted on in the House and the Senate this Congress that would give DC voting rights in the House in exchange for Utah also getting an additional seat. Why? Well, the Republicans would only go for the radical idea of DC voting rights if the additional vote -- most assuredly a Democratic vote -- would be a wash. Utah has been whining since the last census -- they felt they got the shaft, with all the Mormons off on missions -- and that they actually should have gotten another congressional seat back in 2002. Of course, this compromise comes with all kinds of Constitutional questions, a limited shelf life given the decennial census is just around the corner (making this compromise moot), and of course does nothing whatsoever for the District's Senate representation.

That particular conundrum is further complicated by both politics and procedure, since the Republicans do not want the Democrats to gain two Democratic senators from the District, and Senate rules allow filibusters and holds that would make any kind of vote on this issue -- voting rights, a constitutional amendment, whatever -- a very, very high hurdle indeed. The fact that my voting rights, however, are subverted for such narrow partisan interests is the very definition of hypocrisy.

The worst part about all this is that, despite the lack of representation, Congress still feels free to impose its will on Washington, DC in the worst ways possible. They like to use us as an incubator for their crazy ideas -- the Republicans are particularly good at that. Can't get school vouchers that siphon off public monies to private schools, that bypass civil rights, passed nationwide? Nope -- but go ahead, impose them on the District, whose people don't want them. Mad that those same people voted in a gun ban, which has made the streets safer and kept the nation's capital from being the murder capital of the country as well? Sue the city, and take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court (who overturned the ban) because you don't think district residents have the right to govern themselves -- never mind that the gun ban has been in place for decades. Oh yeah, and forbid DC from doing any kind of needle exchange program, too, despite the fact that 1 in 20 residents is infected with HIV. There are lots and lots of examples where congressional conservatives try -- and sometimes successfully -- impose their narrow will on a population that doesn't even have a vote in their chambers. How friggin' insulting is that?

Remember what happened the last time Americans got fed up with that kinda treatment from the powers that be? With taxation without representation? Patriots dumped a bunch of tea into Boston Harbor and the rest is history. My friends, after almost 12 years in DC with very little progress made on DC voting rights, not to mention being treated like a guinea pig by Congress whenever they can't manage to impose their will nationwide, I'm about to throw some Lipton in the Potomac River and see if I can't foment a little rebellion myself. It's past time for real DC voting rights.

Here's a fun video about DC voting rights... get past the bit in the beginning, and it's actually a good song and video.



Copyright 2008 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

VOTE, Dammit. Voting Early is Even Better.

From all reports, early voting is off the charts this election season. Florida's Republican governor declared an emergency, ordering polling places to stay open later to contend with the hours-long wait at some voting places. Finally, this year, Americans will turn out in record numbers -- in numbers we've never seen before. This is wonderful, amazing, thrilling.

But the sad fact is that many polling places may not be ready for the onslaught -- especially in critical swing states. As a result, anyone who can vote prior to Nov. 4 -- either by registering for absentee ballots or by early voting -- I strongly recommend that you do so. Declare Yourself has a great interactive map about early voting -- find out the rules in your state. You could be living in one of the 31 states allowing folks to beat the rush this week. But, remember that early voting and absentee voting are different things:

No-Excuse Early Voting: Thirty-one states allow voters to cast their ballots early even if they are able to make it to the polls on Election Day. Some elections offices use touch-screen voting machines and others allow voters to submit an in-person absentee ballot (see below).

In-Person Absentee: A form of early voting in which voters go to their county elections office, apply for an absentee ballot, fill it out, and submit it to their election official in person.

Excuse Required: If you can’t make it to the polls on Election Day, four U.S. states and the District of Columbia require a valid excuse to vote early and absentee in-person. Requirements vary by state, but can include military service, college attendance, and sickness.

Celebrities have been out in full force this election season -- and the latest Declare Yourself video is chock full of 'em urging all of us to vote. And I'm telling you -- don't take this one for granted. It ain't over yet, no fat lady has sung -- and it might just be the early voting that gives our man Barack the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The time is now, my friends. Don't miss your chance to be part of history -- and make a change for the better.



Copyright 2008 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

The Rats are Jumping Ship: High Profile Republicans Endorse Obama, McCain Campaign Concedes Key States

People do not like a loser, and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is starting to be a stinker -- if you go by his own party's behavior.

First, well known conservative pundit George Will seems to have had it with The Maverick -- McCain's deer-in-the-headlights reaction to the economic crisis seems to have sent Will over the edge. Then, in the course of a week, Christopher Buckley -- columnist for the Weekly Standard, a conservative handbook founded by his famous father William F. Buckley -- broke ranks and endorsed Sen. Barack Obama. By the way, Buckley got fired for his trouble. How dare he exercise independent thinking!

Then, Gen. Colin Powell, a respected former military man and Bush 43's first secretary of state, came out on Meet the Press for the junior senator from Illinois -- and Rush Limbaugh pretty much called Powell a racist for his trouble. Also this past week, conservative Philadelphia talk show host Michael Smerconish endorsed Obama, live on his WPHT show on Friday (you can listen to his rationale here). Truly, you cannot make this stuff up.

Then, just today, CNN reported that top McCain campaign officials are "making tough decisions" -- pulling campaign staff about of states they no longer see as winnable: Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa. Instead, the campaign is counting on Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and an improbable comeback in Pennsylvania to tip the electoral college balance. In defense, the McCain campaign said: "We see the race tightening both internally and in public polling. We are within striking distance in the key battleground states we need to win." One clearly has to wonder -- what kinda crack are the McCain people smoking?

Frankly, why do they bother to announce this kinda stuff? Talk about scary red flags. Holy smokes, Batman, this campaign's on fire -- and the rats are leaving the ship. Worse, in key states, the McCain campaign is literally giving up the ship.

Lest you think The Zaftig Redhead is becoming overconfident regarding an Obama victory, au contraire. I have no illusions about the dirty tactics and shady voter suppression efforts headed our way. That's why I am encouraging everyone who can to take part in early voting or absentee balloting. This will minimize the impact of these last ditch, underhanded efforts to swing or suppress the vote, and will help to minimize the lines at the polls on election day -- which by all accounts are going to be long. Let's beat them at their own game folks -- for those of you who can, get out there and vote, NOW!

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

DC News Briefs: Lost Relatives, Historic Votes and ... Mani-Pedi's?

A few days ago I did my first DC News Briefs blog, and I find I like the format -- perfect for the latest juicy news from inside the beltway. So, friends, here's another installment of news tidbits direct from our nation's capital -- the strange, the remarkable, the trivial (but interesting), and some things guaranteed to piss you off. Expect this to become a regular feature -- hell, I'll even give DC briefs their own label.

A Record Vote in More Ways Than One: The Oct. 3 House vote on the $700 billion financial bailout package was historic in more ways than one. Aside from the massive socialization of risk/privatization of profits trade off that occurred, it was also notable because all members of the chamber showed up to cast their votes. Shamefully, this marked the first time in five years that the entire body had cast a simple yes or no on a piece of legislation. Way to go, team!

Palin and the Princess: Apparently VEEP candidate Sarah Palin is distantly related to Princess Diana and FDR. But she's not the only one with some presidential DNA -- apparently Barack Obama is related to Dick Cheney, Gerald Ford, and Bush 41 and Bush 43. Damn. McCain's got connections as well -- to Laura Bush, of all people, as well as King Louis VII of France. No wonder the Maverick has delusions of grandeur.

Uncle Sam Gives a Mani-Pedi: Less than a week after the federal government -- um, that would be you and me -- so generously offered an $85 billion bailout to insurance giant AIG, the company held a week-long retreat for its executives at the luxury St. Regis Resort in California, running up an astonishing tab of $440,000. The executives spent $200,000 for rooms, $150,000 for meals and $23,000 for the spa. No wonder AIG needed that additional loan of $38 billion just to make ends meet.

Remember the First Stimulus? October 15 is the last day to file for those stimulus rebates. At last count, at least 4.3 million Americans had yet to claim their $300 to $600 booty. You can find out if you're eligible for the debt-funded windfall on a prior blog I did on the topic. By the way, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is still talking about another stimulus bill -- the House passed a measure just before they recessed, but the Senate failed to follow suit.

Voter Suppression Rears its Ugly Head Again... and Again, and Again: According to an investigation by the New York Times, upwards of tens of thousands of eligible voters in as many as six swing states have been removed from the registration rolls or have been blocked from registering in ways that might to violate federal law.

Obama Makes Record Ad Buy: Already advertising at record levels, Barack Obama has scheduled a half-hour commercial for prime time on Oct. 29, six days before Election Day. I guess he's betting that he can lure people from FOX, who will showing the sixth game of the World Series at the same time -- or perhaps, now that Chicago's teams are out of the running, he just doesn't give a crap. The Obama campaign has lined up a 30-minute block of time at 8p.m. on both NBC and CBS -- the latter of which is already pushing back "The New Adventures of Old Christine" to sell the time. The campaign is still working on ABC.


Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

'Tis the Season to Test Your Citizenship Chops: Have You Got the Right Stuff?

Despite the fact that immigration seems to have fallen off the short list of hot topics -- there was not one question about it during the vice presidential debate -- the issue is still roiling under the surface. And it is also often the excuse of choice for people trying to suppress voter turnout -- you know, because illegal immigrants are simply flooding the polls with illegal votes. Yeah, right.

Well, for those of us lucky to be American born and bred, we have a choice at the polls coming up in about a month. Yes, one of the key responsibilities and privileges of citizenship is voting.

But for those folks who chose the United States as the country of their hearts and minds, but are not born in the red, white and blue, they have to take and pass a citizenship test before such rights are conferred upon them. Could you pass the test? Have you taken it? Well, here's your chance -- and here's another version that's even tougher. Some questions are a bit of a gimme, and the way the first example from AOL is set up -- with pictures -- is not how those looking to become naturalized citizens get to take it. No hints allowed. But the government is revising the questions, making them tougher -- tough enough that more than a few natural-born citizens would fail.

I bet there will be a few questions you have to think about. Do you have what it takes to be a citizen?


Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Bill Maher's Religulous: In Theaters October 3rd

Anyone else concerned about the encroachment of religion into politics, especially in a country where there is supposed to be a bright line separation between church and state? Well, it looks like comedian Bill Maher has taken on the subject in his film, Religulous. Also, if you are looking for an organization that's fighting the good fight on this issue, try Americans United for the Separation of Church and State; their big project now is to stop illegal church electioneering. AU's efforts are particularly important given the Alliance Defense Fund's efforts to politicize the issue and force a court showdown over the separation of church and state. This weekend, more than 200 pastors plan to endorse candidates from the pulpit; if the IRS threatens their non-profit status as a result they have vowed to file lawsuits as part of the Pulpit Initiative. And, given how the Bush Administration has tipped the scales in the judiciary, I am more than a little nervous about the outcome of such challenges. Maybe Maher's movie -- well timed given the Pulpit Initiative's big day -- will help to stem the tide.



Copyright 2008 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Latest Republican Scare Tactic: Register to Vote and Put Yourself at Risk for Identity Theft!

Virgina is sure to be a battleground state this fall, with the Obama candidacy putting the state in play for the first time in recent memory. Not to mention the fact that it looks like former Gov. Mark Warner (D) is going to walk away with the state's open Senate seat, which is being vacated by statesman Sen. John Warner (R, no relation). Mark Warner would join Virginia's up and coming Sen. Jim Webb (D) in Congress, representing a state that already has a popular Democratic governor in Tim Kane -- an early Obama supporter and someone whose national stature has risen as his name has occasionally been bandied about in the Veep Sweeps.

Needless to say, all this blue, donkey-shaped confetti floating around the used-to-be-reliably-red state of Virginia has got the state Republican party in a tizzy -- even Virgina Rep. Eric Cantor's name being included on the Maverick's Veep short list hasn't cheered them up. Enter Republican Party of Virginia Chairman Jeff Frederick, also a member of the state's general assembly, with the latest Republican scare tactic, er -- plan -- to make things go a little more smoothly in the fall.

It all started when three people in Hampton, VA were recently charged with voter fraud. The folks in question -- two 18 year olds and a 22 year old -- worked for Community Voters Project (CVP). As part of the job, they had to meet a daily quota of new registrations. According to the Associated Press, the group is affiliated with the Fund for the Public Interest, which promotes progressive and environmentalist efforts but has no direct ties to the Democratic Party or the Obama campaign. Also important to note, it was the CVP that first discovered the problems and alerted the authorities. According to not only election officials but the police and prosecutors as well, greed was the motivation, not a desire to influence elections.

Note that, while of course innocent until proven guilty, apparently suspicious behavior was noted, investigated and charges were eventually filed -- the system worked. I suspect the real problem is not really about this particular case, but rather about the 140,000 new voters registered in Virginia this year -- most of them Democratic. If they were mostly new red voters, I sincerely doubt Mr. Frederick would be calling for a statewide -- yes, statewide -- investigation.

"If we can't tell the voters that their will is being executed on Election Day, then why do we even have a democracy?" Frederick whined. Yeah, where were you when the victims of the butterfly ballot needed help in Florida, pal? How about their will?

Local registrars are in Richmond, the state capital, for their annual training this week, and they were clear about safeguards that are already in place to make sure fraud is caught -- and the Hampton example seems to support that. It's also a great example of the self-regulating done by third party groups. "I can guarantee you one thing, whoever wins November 4 will win fair and square in Virginia," State Board of Elections Secretary Nancy Rodrigues said.

But wait -- here's the kicker. The coup de grace. The icing on the cake. Apparently Mr. Frederick is not just worried about voter fraud. Nope, this concerned citizen did not stop there. He used his press conference as a bully pulpit to also share his concerns about third party groups registering voters, and what he believes is the dangerous possibility of identity theft since the registration form asks for social security numbers. Not at all coincidentally, the Obama camp is currently engaged in a huge registration drive in Virginia. I sincerely doubt the timing of the Republican Party of Virginia's press conference was a coincidence.

"If you're not comfortable in giving your social security number, don't do that," said Rodrigues. "The general registrars will follow up with you." Maybe they are supposed to -- heck, maybe they mean to, but do you really think that's what will happen? With all the new registrations they have to process, new voting machines to deploy, and the huge election to prepare for? Or will registrars simply toss your registration form as incomplete, leaving you standing there on Election Day, being told by a poll worker that your name's not on the list -- sorry, come back next time.

I gotta tell you, this latest ploy is ingenious. Scare people away from voter registration drives by telling them it's a sure path to identity theft. Brilliant. Diabolical, but brilliant. Despicable, but brilliant. As far as I'm concerned, there is a special place in hell for people who intentionally try to disenfranchise others simply because they don't like how they'll cast their ballots. This nation is better than that. And this nation is certainly better than Jeff Frederick and his cheap, transparent scare tactics. I can think of no better way to repay him and his state party than for Democrats to run the table in Virginia on Nov. 4.


Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Arizona Voter ID Law Nabs Grandma: Former Teacher has Voted in Every Presidential Election Since 1932

Anti-immigrant sentiment is so strong that many states have passed voter ID laws, requiring people to show picture IDs before they pull the lever, punch their card, mark their ballot, etc. Of course, these laws are nothing more than voter suppression laws in disguise -- that is their true intent and design.

Let's be clear. Illegal immigrants don't go anywhere near the polls -- are you kidding me? They don't want to be anyplace that has even a whiff of official government activity. No, what these Republican-sponsored laws tend to do is prevent the elderly, minorities, and the poor -- typically key Democratic voting blocks -- from voting. You see, if you don't drive -- so no driver's license -- or you don't have the funds to buy a state ID or to pay for a copy of your birth certificate --or no one can find your birth certificate -- too bad. No ballot for you!

Arizona's voter ID law has nabbed one such suspicious person -- and she is being punished accordingly. Shirley Preiss was born in Kentucky in 1910, before suffrage rights were even granted to American women. Shirley has actually been quite the conscientious voter, casting her ballot in every presidential election since 1932. But, all that's about to change. As Art Levine reported in the Huffington Post, Shirley effectively lost her right to vote when she moved to Arizona.

After living in Arizona for two years, she was eagerly looking forward to casting her ballot in the February primary for the first major woman candidate for President, Hillary Clinton. But lacking a birth certificate or even elementary school records to prove she’s a native-born American citizen, the state of Arizona’s bureaucrats determined that this former school-teacher who taught generations of Americans shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Arizona's voter ID law requires voters to produce ID at the polling place and to provide proof of citizenship in order to register. But birth certificates weren’t provided in 1910 in Clinton, KY, where Shirley was born. To top it off, her elementary school no longer exists. And since no one who witnessed her birth is alive to attest to the fact that Shirley was, indeed, actually born -- a way to get a delayed birth certificate -- Shirley is shit outta luck. And there is absolutely no provision in the Arizona law to get a waiver. So Shirley, after being a good citizen for decades, sat out the spring primary and gets to sit home again on November 4th -- watching democracy pass her by.

The scary thing is that the US Supreme Court recently upheld a similar Indiana voter ID law, saying that it didn't seem to impose an undue burden on citizens. Levine further reported about a similar situation in Missouri, a state that is also rushing headlong into passing an ill-conceived, draconian voter ID law. When you hear what these nuns -- yes, nuns -- have to say, you see just how big of a burden these laws can be:

At a fair-election coalition press conference at the League of Women Voters' headquarters in Jefferson City, a few nuns came forward to express their concerns that the Catholic sisters in their convents lack the required ID. In fact, before the news conference, Sister Sandy Schwartz of the Franciscan Sisters of Mary in St. Louis reported the results of an informal survey of nuns in her order."Fifteen [of 35 voters] did not have state-issued photo IDs," she observed. "This may sound like a good idea at first, but once you stop to think about who would really be affected, this is going to keep a lot of our loved ones from being able to vote."

The strict documentary requirements can be hard for Missouri nuns and other senior citizens, even married women of all ages, in obtaining their birth certificates. A survey by NYU's Brennan Center for Justice found that 52 percent of married woman don't have a birth certificate in their current name, and 17 percent of citizens age 65 and over don't have access to any citizenship documents.

If you thought Florida in 2000 was bad, wait until you hear the stories of disenfranchisement that will come out of this election as a result of these ill-conceived voter ID laws. And it will be all the more ironic -- not to mention sad, disheartening and infuriating -- coming in a year that has seen record voter turn out this primary season.


Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Michigan and Florida: The Democrats' Waterloo or Chance at Redemption

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, warned on ABC's "This Week" (3/9) that a divisive nomination fight could cost the Democrats the White House. Gee, ya' think? Not much of a news flash, there, doc -- thanks for catching up.

Dean's concerned, of course, about the Michigan/Florida problem -- and all the fuzzy math being done by the opposing camps trying to twist the calculus in their favor. "I have to run these rules so that the losing side feels they've been treated fairly," he announced on the Sunday talking head show. Hmmm. If you can do that, buddy, Al Gore oughta give you his Nobel Peace Prize. There is likely not a graceful way out of this that is going to make everyone happy -- not with the increasing level of nastiness coming from both campaigns as well as some of their more devoted (rabid?) disciples. These folks have chugged the Kool-aid, which has blinded them from keeping their eyes on the prize. The real problem will be if the only outcome that will please folks is a decision that benefits their candidate and screws the other.

The DNC and Dr. Dean need to resign themselves that there is no pleasing everyone this time, and that some bloodletting is likely inevitable. The question is, how much hemorrhaging can this stubborn mule take before it has to be put down, and the White House is forfeited to Sen. "I'm-glad-to-have-the-endorsement-of-Catholic-hating-Rev.-Hagee" McCain. If the Democrats can let cooler heads prevail, and if both candidates can show a little leadership and see the forest for the trees, a decent resolution to this delegate mess could take the party in a meaningful step towards party reunification. We got ourselves into this mess -- the presidency may well hinge on how we get ourselves out of it.

Each campaign has crunched the delegate numbers and come up with the solution that works best for them. Clinton wants both state primaries, which she happened to win, to count toward her delegate count. Indeed, she desperately needs these delegates if she has any hope of catching Obama. At the very least, she wants brand-spanking new primaries in one or both of the states.

On the other hand, Obama's camp says a change in the rules mid-stream is unfair. He wants the delegates apportioned -- either split evenly (making the inclusion of both states a wash to his current delegate lead) or by another standard, but hasn't necessarily ruled out a new vote. Not surprisingly, given his dominance in caucuses, his camp has floated the idea of holding replacement caucuses -- though that was pretty transparent and doesn't seem to have gotten much traction. Why have caucuses in states that have always had primaries?

Dean has apparently expressed support for a new primary -- maybe even one conducted by mail -- at least for Florida. Why would he make a distinction between the two states? There's a very good reason: it was the Republican state legislature, and a Republican governor and McCain supporter in Charlie Crist, who came up with the bright idea to move up the primary in the first place. Over the opposition of Florida Democrats, I might add. But Dean has also said the DNC won't finance a second vote, and you can bet your next paycheck the Republicans in Tallahassee won't pay for it either -- hell, they've got a front row seat to the best political theater going.

I came across this provocative post on washingtonpost.com in response to this mess:

Howard Dean is not looking at the big picture; namely, to win in November. Not seating delegations from Florida and Michigan will likely cost Democrats the election. Seating the delegates won in the early primarys [sic] will alienate millions of Obama supporters with disaster even more certain. Seating delegations arbitrarily selected, perhaps equally divided, will satisfy no one. There is no better use of Party Funds than to hold new primarys [sic] in June. If Howard Dean is concerned about the ability of the party to afford them, he should announce a special fund raising drive for that purpose: I doubt it would take a week to collect ample funds. Posted by: Lee Sterne March 9, 2008 01:34 PM

The Florida Democratic Party -- chaired by one of my favorite former members of Congress, Karen Thurman -- is on a similar wavelength. Like Dean, they are pondering a mailbox election, with ballots sent to all of Florida's almost 5 million registered Democrats. The cost would be $4-6 million, and the state party wants someone else to foot the bill. But the party has also said they would accept a "soft money" contribution from, oh, I dunno, a wealthy Democratic donor, labor union, or some other fat cat willing to pick up the tab. And, last but not least, the Florida Dems also want firm agreements that Clinton and Obama would both campaign in the state. Where's George Soros when you need him??

Another entry at washingtonpost.com was also apropos, considering these delegate rules -- crazy as they are -- were set up a year and a half ago, and Michigan Democrats at least voted in favor of the scheme. It was only later that the two states decided not to abide by the plan, and this post reflects a lot of folks frustration about the results:

Personally, I'm annoyed at all these politicians from MI and FL complaining about having to do a revote. They knew what the penalties were when they chose to violate the rules. It is these FL and MI politicians that the voters should be mad at for getting everyone into this mess. Posted by: JT March 9, 2008 01:43 PM

But hey, after the 2000 debacle, Florida especially is not about to take this lying down. Two state senators -- one of them a Clinton backer-- are thinking about ratcheting up the stakes and the acrimony, with a bill proposing that Florida drop the party's eventual presidential nominee from the ballot unless it seats Florida's delegates. Holy crap. Can you imagine? While legal scholars doubt the constitutionality of the proposal, the Florida state Senate Democratic leader has already been approached by Republicans promoting the bill. Of course he has! Imagine the time, energy, money and good will that the DNC would have to burn to fight that law, were the Republicans to pass it? What a bloody nightmare.

About the best idea I've heard so far boils down to a group of party elders -- pretty much a Democratic cabal -- being gathered to figure out the mess once and for all. One member of Congress, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-MO), has echoed growing concerns about a Democratic meltdown over the election. He has urged Dean to appoint a panel of party elders to recommend a strategy to resolve the dispute. Folks like former President Jimmy Carter and former Vice Presidents Walter Mondale and Al Gore come to mind, likely to be joined by other undeclared but venerable superdelegates. Might there even be a role for John Edwards? I like the idea, but would add that it needs to be kinda like binding arbitration, with both Clinton and Obama agreeing to abide by the outcome beforehand -- no sour grapes afterwards. And it needs to happen soon, and the campaigns need to dial it back a notch until the issue is resolved. If Democrats handle this right, they could make progress towards a more unified party in November -- something we desperately need right now. Otherwise, they might as well hand the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to the McCains right now.

This Women’s History Month, Women's Voices Women Vote is honoring those women that have utilized the internet to amplify their voices. Nominate your favorite woman blogger by March 21, then check back to vote for your favorite among our top 10 women bloggers. http://www.wvwv.org/

Sick and Tired of Being Sick and... Fired

While many denizens of the nation's capital were absorbed by the political theater presented by the 'mini-super-Tuesday' whirlwind of Ohio and Texas, the District's city government played out its own drama albeit on a local stage. With little fanfare, Washington, DC added itself to the ranks of a growing revolution. What was so momentous, you ask? Well, on the very same day so much attention was riveted on the Buckeye and Lone Star states, the DC City Council passed the Accrued Paid Sick and Safe Days Act of 2007.

Why is this a big deal? Believe it or not, nearly half (48 percent) of full-time, private-sector employees have NO paid sick days whatsoever, and a total of 57 million working Americans can’t take a single paid sick day to care for their own health -- let alone a sick kid (IWPR, 2006). The problem hits working women particularly hard, who are still pretty much responsible for meeting family caregiving needs. Almost half (49 percent) of working mothers report that they must miss work when a child is sick. And of these mothers, 49 percent do not get paid when they miss work to care for a sick child (Kaiser, 2006).

In a city where the differences between the haves and have nots are often pretty stark, this new law will let workers to earn paid sick days they've never had access to before. The majority of these workers earn their living in low-wage retail, food service and construction jobs; physically demanding work, and -- in the case of food service and retail -- jobs where we'd all just as soon sick folks stay home rather than go to work and share their cooties with the rest of us.

The new law will provide seven paid sick and safe days for DC workers in companies with 100 employees or more, five days for firms with 25-99 employees, and three days for businesses with 24 or fewer employees. Of particular note, workers in the District are now also guaranteed paid safe days, so that those dealing with domestic abuse can take time off for violence-related court appearances for things like protection orders, as well as other social services.

The District measure got held up several times over objections from the business community, who are sure this law will put them in dun territory. It was the same argument the Chamber of Commerce and their pals threw at us over the Family and Medical Leave Act -- Chicken Little hysterics, it turns out. Fifteen years later, the sky has not fallen and the FMLA is an incredibly successful law. And, a year later, San Francisco -- the only other city with minimum paid sick days -- has not fallen into the ocean either. In fact, recent reports have shown that the program is getting implemented pretty smoothly -- although there is the inevitable paperwork -- and worries over employee abuse have been exaggerated.

The District's new law is not perfect -- no legislation is. It has a hardship exemption for businesses who can prove the law is problematic to their bottom line -- I'll be real curious to see how that plays out. The new law also excludes some food service workers and healthcare staff (healthcare? cuz those are the people we want going to work sick. are they smokin' crack?). You also have to be on the job for a year before you can benefit from this, well, benefit. No getting sick -- you or your kids -- for that first year! And, oh yeah -- like all other DC legislation -- it has to get the stamp of approval from Congress. A Congress, I might add, where DC residents have no voting representation in either chamber. But I digress.

While the District is only the second city to guarantee workers paid sick time, the bill is representative of a larger local, state and national effort to get paid sick days for all. There are cities, counties and states looking at similar legislation, and some states -- like Ohio -- are going for ballot initiatives on the issue. At first I thought maybe paid sick days could be a wedge issue for Democrats -- one that spurs turnout like a good old fashioned anti-gay marriage initiative rallies the wing nuts -- but hell, even the Republicans seem to like this idea. I tell you what, the polls on this issue are good -- it's good policy and just flat out the right thing to do.

And, the reality is, people get fired everyday for taking sick time. That same poll found that nearly one in eight voters surveyed said that they or an adult worker in their family had been fired or penalized by their employer for taking time off to care for a sick family member or recover from their own illness. The United States is shamefully outdated when it comes to these family friendly workplace polices. Despite our relative wealth, we're lagging dramatically behind those in much of the rest of the world. For example, of the 173 countries surveyed by Harvard and McGill University researchers, the we're one of only five countries that do not guarantee some form of paid maternity leave, a distinction We, the People shares with Lesotho, Liberia, Swaziland, and Papua New Guinea. Nice company, huh? That's maternity leave, arguably a bigger deal -- all DC did was give seven paid sick days a year with a fair amount of restrictions and there are smiles all around (except at the Chamber of Commerce -- sorry, guys).

But it's a start. At the federal level, we're working to pass similar legislation called the Healthy Families Act (S. 910/H.R. 1542). This Kennedy/DeLauro bill provides full-time employees with seven paid sick days a year to be used for their own medical needs or to tend to the medical needs of a child, spouse or parent. Part-time employees would receive a pro-rated share of paid sick days. Radical, huh? I know. Call us crazy.

There are lots of ways you can speak your mind on this issue, if you'd like to join the fight. Write a letter to your Senators and Representative, and ask them to co-sponsor the bill. You can also take part in an Online Rally for Paid Sick Days, and share your story. Congress needs to hear the real stories from everyday people if we're going to get this done. And we must, because women are sick and tired of being sick and fired.

Tea Party on the Potomac: It's Time for DC Voting Rights

Tuesday marks the Potomac Primary -- all eyes are on Maryland, DC and Virginia as the presidential primary season marches on. As a resident of our nation's capital, I'd like to take this opportunity to remind the rest of the country that while our votes at the polls will give delegates to the Democratic and Republican nominees, the same folks who go to the ballot box have no voting representation in Congress.

Really. It's true. Taxation without representation is alive and well and being inflicted upon the denizens of Washington, DC. Imagine my surprise, moving here as I did to work on Capitol Hill, to find that my newly minted DC driver's license also instantly disenfranchised me. Yeah, yeah -- we have a non-voting Delegate, but Eleanor Holmes Norton is only allowed to vote in committee and then only if she doesn't cast the tie-breaking vote. In other words, she only gets to vote when it can't make a difference. She has no vote on the floor whatsoever. Meanwhile, DC residents -- many of whom are also, ironically, involved in politics like myself -- also have no senators whatsoever. The District of Columbia, in other words, has the same congressional status as Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. But, um, those folks DON'T PAY TAXES to the United States Government. DC residents do.

How can this be, you ask? Well, the U.S. Supeme Court, in its recent decision, said it's because DC is not a state. They were sympathetic to our plight, but the U.S. Constitution says only states get such representation. So, the only alternative is for DC to become a state, or for there to be a constitutional amendment allowing DC representation without statehood. There has also been this fairly silly compromise that's been voted on in the House and the Senate this Congress that would give DC voting rights in the House in exchange for Utah also getting an additional seat. Why? Well, the Republicans would only go for the radical idea of DC voting rights if the additional vote -- most assuredly a Democratic vote -- would be a wash. Utah has been whining since the last census -- they felt they got the shaft, with all the Mormons off on missions -- and that they actually should have gotten another congressional seat back in 2002. Of course, this compromise comes with all kinds of Constitutional questions, and of course does nothing whatsoever for Senate representation. That particular conundrum is further complicated by both politics and procedure, since the Republicans do not want the Democrats to gain two Democratic Senators from the District, and Senate rules allow filibusters and holds that would make any kind of vote on this issue -- voting rights, a constitutional amendment, whatever -- a very, very high hurdle indeed. The fact that my voting rights, however, are subverted for such narrow partisan interests is the very definition of hypocrisy.

The worst part about all this is that, despite the lack of representation, Congress still feels free to impose its will on Washington, DC in the worst ways possible. They like to use us as an incubator for their crazy ideas -- the Republicans are particularly good at that. Can't get school vouchers that siphon off public monies to private schools, that bypass civil rights, passed nationwide? Nope -- but go ahead, impose them on the District, whose people don't want them. Mad that those same people voted in a gun ban, which has made the streets safer and kept the nation's capital from being the murder capital of the country as well? Sue the city, and take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court because you don't think district residents have the right to govern themselves -- never mind that the gun ban has been in place for decades. Oh yeah, and forbid DC from doing any kind of needle exchange program, too, despite the fact that 1 in 20 residents is infected with HIV. There are lots and lots of examples where congressional conservatives try to -- and sometimes successfully -- impose their narrow will on a population that doesn't even have a vote in their chambers. How friggin' insulting is that?

Remember what happened the last time Americans got fed up with that kinda treatment from the powers that be? With taxation without representation? Patriots dumped a bunch of tea into Boston Harbor and the rest is history. My friends, after over 10 years in DC with very little progress made on DC voting rights, not to mention being treated like a guinea pig by Congress whenever they couldn't manage to impose their will nationwide, I'm about to throw some Lipton in the Potomac River and see if I can't foment a little rebellion myself. I'm glad we're getting some attention this primary season, but it's past time for real DC voting rights.

Fat Tuesday and Dueling Kennedys: No Closure Yet

In some sort of strange cosmic convergence, Fat Tuesday and Super Duper Nuclear Tuesday fell on the same day. Add to that the surprise Super Bowl victory of the underdog New York Giants and their Manhattan ticker tape parade on the same day, and there were a fair amount of people not even sober on February 5th. However, time marches on, 24 state primaries and caucuses were held, and turnout was gratifyingly high. Alas, for those of you looking for closure, however, this was not to be the day.

As predicted, the battle for the Democratic primary is far from over. While Hillary Clinton won the big prizes -- New York, California -- Barack Obama won more states overall (13 to Clinton's 8; New Mexico at this writing was too close to call.) In political speak, this she did/he did stuff simply means the spin doctors from both camps can claim "victory." Clinton leads in the delegate count, but it's close. Clinton's 2 to 1 edge in superdelegates could loom large here... but there are still enough superdelegates left uncommitted to keep us on the edge of our seats. Obama did well enough on Super Tuesday -- including winning a squeaker in Missouri that was at first called for Hillary -- to perhaps move some of those uncommitted members of Congress and Govenors and DNC dignataries off the endorsement dime. However, Hillary also did well enough to at least in part stem the Obama tide that seemed to be rising over the past week -- meaning that the Big Mo is no longer as sqarely in his camp, and thus might keep those waffling superdelegates waffling a while longer.

At the end of the day, the much vaunted and various Kennedy clan endorsements did not seem to make as much of a difference as they did for headlines and juicy gossip. Obama is running ad's with flashes of Camelot and JFK's kid, Caroline. He's also been campaigning with JFK's brother, Teddy, in the senator's home state of Massachusetts and elsewhere; but Hillary carried the Mayflower state. Kennedy Cousin Maria Shriver came fresh from her kid's riding lesson (how Kennedy-esque!), unplanned and sans makeup, to endorse Obama at a rally with pal Oprah (they started in Baltimore broadcasting together). But Hillary carried California -- perhaps with the help of the son of Ceasar Chavez (60 percent of the kids in CA schools are Latino). RFK's kids -- RFK, Jr., former Maryland Lt. Gov. Kathleeen Kennedy Townsend -- are in Hillary's camp, and Hillary had her own retrospective add using RFK, Jr. and flashes of Bobby. We'll see how that bit of nostalgia plays in next week's Potomac primaries in DC, Marlyand and Virginia -- where apparently outraged voters were calling state offices wanting to know why their polling places weren't open on Super Tuesday. I like the enthusiasm even if the aim was a little off. Here's hoping they show up next week too.

Speaking as a resident of our nation's capital -- the land of the great disenfranchised, of taxation without representation, where we have monuments to our great democracy but no application of federalized democracy for city residents -- where we have one non-voting Delegate to the House of Representatives and absolutely no senators whatsoever, it's very sweet to have our votes actually mean something -- but that's another rant, and another blog.

Meanwhile, Republicans are still proportioning out their affections in a fairly miserly fashion. Fat Tuesday's results gave new life to Mike Huckabee, and pissed off Mitt Romney (back to the bank account, Mitt). Actually, for Huckabee, his showing in the South pretty much put him front and center in the VEEP sweepstakes for plurality winner John McCain, who appears to be the metroliner candidate -- carrying the northeast corridor with ease. However, when it comes to the Bible Belt, McCain's not fashionable -- even if it is Fashion Week. Preacher Huckabee could be just the accessory McCain needs to appeal to disgruntled evangelicals -- perhaps together, they can take on the history making, record-turnout producing, change-making machine of the Democrats. No rest for the wicked --the political strategists are huddling even now, plotting their next moves.

WWSD: What Would the Suffragists Do? or, Will Women Vote Their DNA?

Once again, women voters are in the driver's seat and charting the course of the Democratic Party -- and it's not because the men would not stop to ask for directions. That's right, ladies. When you line up at the polls on Super Duper Nuclear Tuesday, your shear numbers will once again be determining the fate of the Democratic nominees. You Go, Girls!

There are basically two sentiments running through the girl-power set these days. It goes something like this:

• If you're a woman, you vote for Hillary because of what it means to women everywhere. It's past time one of our own was in the White House, dammit, and she's ready for the job.


• If I'm supposed to vote for Hillary just because I'm a woman and she's a woman, isn't that almost as sexist as NOT voting for her because she's a woman?

That's the issue many of us have been mulling, especially when both candidates clearly have much to recommend them. Do you vote for a woman to finally and forever shatter that particular marble ceiling? Or do you make a decision that is not confined by gender but rather empowered by your own conscience. Hmmm.... it's a tough call, especially when Obama's bid to become the first black president is every bit as historic as Clinton's run for the record books. And when McCain is breathing down our necks. Baby boomer women (mid-40's to mid-60s) seem particularly torn about their choice, wavering between honoring their mothers and listening to their daughters.

Are women who vote for Obama somehow traitorous? Oprah, Caroline Kennedy, Maria Shriver, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (CA) and Clare McCaskill (MO), Reps. Rosa DeLauro (CT) and Jan Schakowsky (IL), Gov. Janet Napolitano (AZ) and writer Alice Walker would argue otherwise -- none of them are slouches when it comes to women's equity. Women's rights advocate Kate Michelman, an Edwards supporter, has joined the Obama camp now that Edwards has bowed out. Among women "Barack stars," there does not seem to be any sense of opportunity lost in supporting Obama over Clinton. They simply believe in their candidate, and they also believe there will be another woman in the near future. The women for Obama seem to be saying to women nationwide, "it's okay, there's still time to change your mind." There is real confidence that, once busted, this particular barrier will be down to stay -- that Hillary is just the first of many (Margaret Thatcher might beg to differ, but that is the sentiment).

I think there will be other women in my lifetime who will run for president. This isn't going to be women's only chance to vote our DNA, should we chose to do so. And perhaps that is the crux of the matter: this inevitability divide is also often a generational divide. It's no coincidence that Hillary's biggest fan base is women over 65 -- women who've been waiting their whole lives for the chance to vote for a woman. Women who are the least likely to pass this way again. Women whose grandmothers were suffragists.

On the other hand, women can often be our own worst enemy. Women are often the most critical of women candidates, holding them to a higher standard and personalizing our decisions about them. Some women's disdain for Hillary's decision to fight for her marriage rather than leave her philandering husband is a good example; using this as a basis for a presidential vote is rediculous. While Obama has been closing fast in the polls, lots of women could wake up Tuesday -- as they seemed to do in New Hampshire a few weeks ago -- look in the mirror and think to themselves: "Am I smokin' crack? Am I really going to vote against the first viable women candidate? Put down the pipe!"

All this leads me to wonder, what would the suffragists do if faced with this dilemma? I mean, besides a little happy dance that such a wealth of choices is ours to begin with? These women were all about the vote, the franchise, the fundamental right of women to speak their minds at the ballot box. They would rejoice at the pivotal role women's votes now play in most elections, marveling at the gender gap but also encouraging ALL people to exercise this basic responsibility of citizenship. Somehow, I can't imagine the suffragists would want us to vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. In fact, Hillary has said repeatedly that she doesn't want that kind of support, any more than Obama wants us to vote for him just because he's a black man. Both these candidates have encouraged us too look into our hearts, our guts -- but not our DNA. To cast a vote on such a simplistic notion disrespects the right those suffragists fought and even died for not all that long ago.

Youth Action Can Make Political History...Again

The first day of February is a course-altering day in American History. It was on this date in 1960 that four men first walked into a Woolworth's store in Greensboro, NC. They purchased books and school supplies, and then sat down at the lunch counter. The men, freshmen at the North Carolina Agricultural and Technical College, pretty much knew they wouldn't be getting a hamburger and fries that day. You see, they were black and this particular lunch counter was segregated-- whites only.

That very first sit-in didn't accomplish a whole lot. The store manager was all too happy to let the guys just sit there until closing time. But the students had this idea -- radical at the time -- that if they bought goods in one part of the store, there was no reason why they shouldn't be able to purchase services in another part of the store. And when a larger group of students returned the next day, well.... you know the rest of the story. The media moved in, civil rights groups spread the word to other campuses north and south of the Mason-Dixon line, and in two weeks students in 11 cities held sit-ins. By the summer of 1961, similar acts of civil disobedience had attracted over 70,000 people and resulted in more than 3,000 arrests. Sit-ins became an integral tactic that marked a change in the civil rights movement, demonstrating that nonviolent action -- and most importantly, that young activists -- could be effective weapons in the fight against segregation.

Young people changed the world that day back in 1960. And their youth movement continued to push the envelope well into the '70s, with a counter culture that stopped an unpopular war and reshaped restrictive values and old social norms. Hmm, I'm getting a sense of deja vu, here. Why? Because I believe young people are set to make another kind of history this election season. Perhaps it won't feel as world-altering as the achievements of the hippy generation, but I think it has the potential to have long-term consequences. This is going to be the election where young people not only find their voice, but assert their power at the ballot box as well. And in so doing, young voters will chose the nominees for both parties and -- if they trouble themselves to vote in November at the same rates they have in the primaries -- could well be the determining factor on the final outcome this fall.

Just look at the numbers:

• Iowa: Turnout up 315% to 65,230 votes


• New Hampshire: Turnout up 274% to 84,232


• South Carolina: Turnout up 145% to 118,565


• Florida: Turnout up 355% to 285,970

To keep mixing my generational metaphors by quoting a '60s tune, "there's something happening here." Except, I think what's happening here is exactly clear. The youth vote, as it's being called, will make or break the candidates on Super Duper Nuclear Tuesday. And the nominees that these new voters coronate will usher in a new era in American politics in a variety of directions: Clinton is the first woman, Obama the first African American, McCain would be the oldest to win the nomination, Romney would be the first Mormon. It seems fitting, actually, that a generation that has grown up with diversity as the norm would usher in this era of firsts. This is also a generation sick of their elders telling them what's best, and tired of political business as usual. Frankly, they don't think we've done such a great job on their behalf. It's about time these young voters stepped up to the plate, and I can't wait to see where it takes all of us. The Rock the Vote pledge says it all:

"I pledge to vote. I've had enough of politicians making decisions about our lives without our input -- this year, we're picking the president."