President Bush is desperately trying to tie the hands of the next president by negotiating a Status Of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Iraq's government before the end of his term. Unfortunately for Bush, it's looking less and less likely that such an agreement will happen on the timetable he has set. Fortunately, this means that the next occupant of the Oval Office will be able to negotiate his own agreement, rather than being stuck with Bush's.

This story made news a while back, when Bush announced that, with his kingly war powers, he was going to negotiate this agreement on his own, without giving the Senate a chance to weigh in on it at all. Even though this assertation is about as dubious as they come, Bush has acted as though this is a settled question. Senate Democrats beg to differ. But this is a fight that will happen after an agreement is reached with the Iraqis, so it will be fought down the road a ways (if at all).

Continue Reading »

Senator Bill Nelson has just introduced a wide-ranging package of election reform in Congress. This legislative package fixes some small technical election problems (absentee voting restrictions) as well as some larger problems (primary calendar reform). But the biggest issue in the bunch is a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College, and replace it with direct election of the president. Nelson is a Democratic senator from Florida, which makes sense when you remember the troubles they had down there in the 2000 election.

People have been calling for election reforms pretty much since we started having elections in this country. Many reforms have been adopted, and many more have failed. The ones adopted sometimes turn out to have unintended consequences and need further reform. And some of the ones not adopted make a whole lot more sense than how we currently vote, but they were never politically viable.

Continue Reading »

Al Franken is running for the United States Senate from the great state of Minnesota, in case you haven't heard already. And before you ask, no, he's not kidding around. He is running to reclaim the seat of the beloved Paul Wellstone, which was taken (after Wellstone's tragic death in a plane crash) by Republican Norm Coleman.

Minnesota's progressive -- or, more properly, "populist" -- roots are evident in the name of the we're-not-the-Republicans party there: the "Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party" (known to Minnesotans as the DFL). And Franken is about to secure his party's nomination tomorrow, at the state party's convention.

I was able to squeeze in an interview with Franken this week, even though he is busy preparing for today's convention events. I must admit that I forgot to ask him how he converted Arianna Huffington over to progressive politics, but that will just have to wait until I catch up with him again out on the campaign trail.

Continue Reading »

Today begins the second half of the campaign. Sure, Barack Obama is over the top of the "magic number" and is now the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, and sure, Hillary Clinton won't formally endorse Obama until Saturday, but by the calendar yesterday was the halfway point between the Iowa caucuses and the November election. With just over 150 days to go, I thought I'd take a quick look back at the campaign so far.

[OK, I admit, this is kind of "phoning it in" for a column, but I will be on an airplane today, so it's unavoidable. But check back tomorrow, as it will more than make up for today, I promise.]

The most striking thing about the 2008 campaign so far has been the mainstream media pundits being so wrong, so many times. Over and over again, all the talking heads and denizens of the Sunday political talk shows have largely agreed on things which were almost immediately proven false by events on the ground. Here (in very rough chronological order) are just a few of the nuggets of "conventional wisdom" served up as gospel truth by the chattering classes -- which all turned out to be laughable (full disclosure: I uttered a few of these myself, I admit) Feel free to add your own, if I've missed anything obvious.

Continue Reading »

Of all the Pete Seeger songs I heard growing up, "Which Side Are You On?" always struck me as more of a dirge than a Labor anthem. When you listen to it, it's almost threatening in tone, and very dark throughout.

There's a reason for this. It was a threat. It's a song which can easily be sung through clenched teeth, to put it bluntly. As Benjamin Franklin quipped, just before he signed the Declaration of Independence: "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." He was not, it should be pointed out, speaking figuratively. Our Founding Fathers knew they were risking the hangman's rope by what they were doing to bring self-rule and democracy to America.

In the Labor movement, the same stark choice existed: you're either with us, or you're against us. This was a hard-fought lesson. Infiltration was constant, and telling friend from foe was a life-or-death choice at times.

"Which Side Are You On?" is a folk song. It was written by Florence Reece in 1931, in Harlan County, Kentucky. Her husband was forced from his home by the henchmen of J.H. Blair, a local mineowner. After "deputies" illegally invaded and searched her house (her husband was warned in advance, and escaped), Florence immediately wrote the lyrics to this song, on a calendar ripped from the wall of their home. So you can see, even though the music and tone of the song is rather confrontational and dirge-like, there's a valid reason for this. The woman who wrote it had just seen her husband driven from their home by corporate thugs.

Which explains the raw emotion of the song. You're either with us or against us. It's a stark choice, with no room for nuance whatsoever. Pete Seeger recognized this, and made the song famous, far beyond the local Labor dispute which caused it to be written.

This song has been running through my head for a week now.

Continue Reading »

There's a lonely stretch of grassland in Montana, with gently rolling hills next to a small river, where 132 years ago this June, a battle was fought. More on this in a moment.

One of the victors of this battle was a Native American named Crazy Horse. In the Black Hills of South Dakota, not far from Mount Rushmore, another mountain is being carved in his likeness, in the largest sculpture mankind has ever attempted. When finished, it will dwarf Mount Rushmore in size.

Continue Reading »

Tomorrow, the Democratic primary race will finally be over. Or, I should say, the primaries themselves will be over. At long last, everyone will have voted, unless (Democratic) life is discovered on Mars in the next few days.

Ahem.

The possibility of Martian primaries aside, though, it looks like Wednesday morning is going to be decisive for Barack Obama, no matter who wins the remaining two primaries the night before in Montana and South Dakota. And even though it has seemed like and endless campaign so far (mostly because it has been), we will wake up Wednesday only halfway through the election. Counting days, this Wednesday is the exact midpoint between the frozen vote in Iowa and the November election. That's a stunning thought. We're only half done.

Continue Reading »

As the primary election season sinks slowly in the West (South Dakota and Montana, to be exact), we turn our eyes (finally!) to the general election campaign against John McCain.

Before we move forward, though, allow me to make my penultimate primary pick for Sunday's vote in Puerto Rico: Hillary Clinton wins by fifteen points.

Up until now, we've been playing the politically wonky game of predicting the division of delegates, pledged and super alike. But just because primary season's over doesn't mean there aren't other political insider games to play for the next few months. The biggest of these, for now, is to guess the Vice Presidential pick for McCain and Obama. But once that's over with, everyone's going to start looking at the electoral map in earnest.

Continue Reading »

Barack Obama has started talking about his first 100 days in office. This may be wildly premature, but in Obama's defense, he was directly asked the question and actually responded instead of brushing it off. From a Reuters news blog:

During a fund-raiser in Denver, Obama -- a former constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago Law School -- was asked what he hoped to accomplish during his first 100 days in office.

"I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution," said Obama.

Other goals for his first 100 days: work out a plan to withdraw troops from Iraq; make progress on alternative energy plans and launch legislation to reform the health care system.

Continue Reading »

Actors are a superstitious lot. Among the many good-luck and bad-luck rules they follow is one known to the general public, due to its near-universality: actors are never supposed to say the name of the play "Macbeth." They refer to it as "the Scottish play," or the "play about the Scotsman," or some other roundabout terminology which avoids mentioning Macbeth's name.

One would think that politicians everywhere would likewise avoid mentioning the word "assassination" -- ever -- on the campaign trail. Especially if it's not even germane to the point you are supposedly making. One would think. One, apparently, would be wrong.

But, rather than leap into the fray over Senator Clinton's recent remarks on Robert F. Kennedy's assassination (and what month it happened in), I would like to revisit a remark she made earlier on the campaign trail which referenced his brother, President John F. Kennedy. Because I still think it was the turning point for her entire campaign. At the time I raised the possibility that it would be seen as her "Dean Scream" moment, and intervening events have done nothing but reinforce that analysis for me.

Continue Reading »