(The following letter was sent to Senator John Edwards, at johnedwards@readytochangeamerica.com)

Dear Senator Edwards,

I want to thank you for volunteering to stand up for the America that is under-represented in Washington. We must work together to heal the wounds that inequality and unchecked power have wrought upon our country.

Widespread poverty and insecurity, here and around the world...

Environmental destruction that threatens our economy, security, and our children's very future...

I know that you recognize these challenges and will work hard to lead the American people to confront them with due dilligence.

As a father of two young children, I am particularly concerned with the state of the world they will grow up in. The leadership that you (and Elizabeth) have demonstrated has been inspirational to me, and gives me hope for the future.

If you run for President, I will do what I can to help you.

Sincerely,

Robin Ozretich
Corvallis, OR 97333

For those of you who are following the bi-partisan effort to preserve net neutrality in the Senate Commerce Committee, today is the day to call your Senator. I live in Oregon, so I  called my Senator, Gordon Smith, a Republican who sits on the Commerce Committee. An update by mcjoan at Daily Kos identified Senator Smith as one of the more-likely Republican supporters of the Snowe/Dorgan amendment (S. 2917) which would provide strong protections for net neutrality.

A staffer for my Senator, Gordon Smith (R-OR), told me Smith will not be supporting the Snowe/Dorgan amendment to protect net neutrality.  

Recent news that Newt Gingrich is calling for withdrawal from Iraq, no matter how self-serving and hypocritical, is unqualified good news for the Democratic Party.

Yes, I know that many Dems and others are freaking out about how this will further weaken the Democratic Party and our chances in 2006 and 2008 elections (Isn't this typical, by the way, both inside the beltway and in blogistan?). Heaven forbid a Republican 2008 presidential contender advocate withdrawal from Iraq before many prominent Democrats have. Oh, no - maybe the Republicans will seize the anti-Iraq war momentum and ride it all the way to victory in 2006 and 2008! Come on, guys...

In Jerome a Paris' recent diary, he mentioned the "Pledge Card" from Britain. The "Pledge Card" was a simple set of six statements that reflected a political party's vision for the country, all on a credit card-sized card.

I think that forming a set of Pledge Card statements for the Democratic party, or what we would like them to be, anyway, would be a worthy exercise.

Below the fold, I've taken a stab at the Pledge Card. What do you think? How would yours be different? What would your Pledge Card look like?

There has been a lot of discussion over the last few months (or possibly years) about the need for a progressive counterpart to Fox News. More recently, there has been speculation that such a news network could be on the horizon, possibly through the overhaul of one of Fox's two main competitors (see "Buffet and Soros make intriguing purchases" by Kos). While there has been much discussion of the need of progressive news, there has been little discussion regarding what progressive news should look like.

Should progressive news be overtly partisan (and marketed that way) like Air America?
Or should progressive news be non-partisan, like straight news media is supposed to be, while emphasizing issues that matter to progressives (such as health care)? I would like to use this post for a discussion of what you think progressive news should look like, and what it could accomplish. My hope is that this discussion could help spark greater interest in the utility of a progressive news network. More below the fold.

At Your Office

You're at your office. Among the responsibilities of your division of the company is the job of securing several warehouses of explosives. Your company's lawyer comes in, calls a staff meeting, and informs you that one of your boss' division had made a life-threatening mistake...

Their mistake was not locking a warehouse containing 380 tons of distilled explosives (one pound could blow up an airplane) in one of the company warehouses, allowing the explosives to be stolen. After the company lawyer leaves, your boss comes in to give you his side of the story. Your boss refuses to accept any blame for what happened, and instead claims that he had no idea that the event had even happened until a few weeks ago, even though the explosives were stolen over a year before.

I've got an idea that may make interpreting poll numbers a little easier. Take out the undecided voters. As an example, the Pew poll (Oct 16-19 national) showed Bush's approval rating at 44%, while 48% disapprove. Without the undecideds (8%), the approval numbers are 48%, leaving a majority of 52% in disapproval of the president.
If the election were held today, it is possible that Kerry could win with 52% of the vote.

Getting rid of the undecided voters allows for a clearer picture of what the final vote tally will look like on election night, because "undecided" will not receive 6-10% of the vote on election night, like it does in most polls. When the final results come in, Kerry and Bush are likely to split 98-99% of the vote between themselves, with the remaining 1-2% split among Greens, Libs, or other third parties. To get a better estimate of what the actual results might be, throwing out the undecideds makes sense.

I want to see Kerry on the campaign trail, not on the phone raising money (that free media exposure is worth lots of $, by the way). Money will still be pouring in - to the DNC, the 527s, and the down-ticket races that need the money most - and all of this money will help bring people out for Kerry. The money doesn't need to go straight into Kerry's own coffers to bring out the vote for him. And besides, money isn't everything.

Kerry can show his support for public financing by accepting 75 million dollars in FREE money, freeing up 75 million dollars that can be raised for other democrats (Kerry can help raise it, too, can't he?). Bush, on the other hand, is spending money like (insert clever analogy or cliche here) - money that's not going to down-ticket Republicans. I believe that if Kerry can win this at all (and he can), he can win it with 75 million dollars. With public financing for Kerry, we can send more money to congressional candidates - we can have our cake and eat it too. A Kerry presidency will be much better for the country if we send lots of good Democrats to Washington with him.

Accepting public financing is a winning strategy - for Kerry, for the Democrats, and for America.

The more that I hear lawmakers and others complaining that we're stretching our military too thin - to the point where we may need to reinstate the draft to keep our troop levels up - I keep thinking back to the Republican goal of "starving the beast".

The Republican goal of starving social programs through massive tax cuts and running up record deficits is a bad thing - that's our social security money they're giving away. But a similar trend is appearing in troop levels, as an unintended consequence of the Bush wars. Republicans (and Dems alike) may not be willing to starve the military beast's cash flow, but the Bush wars are starving it of young men and women - a deficit that may only be able to be filled by a draft.

A draft is political suicide (let's hope), so this troop deficit may be here to stay. In fact, it may place a major obstacle in the way of future wars or troop deployments. So have Bush's illconcieved wars inadvertantly placed a significant restriction on the use of the American military to dominate the world? Maybe the war in Iraq has made the world a safer place after all!

What do you think?

John Kerry and the Democratic Party have a real opportunity in Florida to...

1. Win the state,
2. Expose the criminal collusion of the Bush Bros for all the world to see, and
3. Actually stand and fight for the right that is most central to any democracy, a right that is being systematically denied to minorities and the poor in Florida.

The Kerry campaign and the DNC should exercise as much power as possible to win back the right to vote for Floridians who are being unjustly kept away from the polls. If the Dems are able to secure the voting rights of Floridians today, it could be the deciding factor in both statewide and presidential elections for decades to come.

This is, for once, good politics AND the right thing to do!

Anyone wonder why the Iraq "handoff" happened ahead of schedule, in the middle of the night (USA time)? I thought the handoff would entail some huge photo-op - there was even speculation that Boy George would make a suprise appearance. Instead, Bremer and Alawi sat down for 20 minutes, signed some legal docs, and then Bremer got the hell out of the country. What happened to the media spectacle?

Is this a sign that the Iraq handoff will not be the feather in Bush's cap that BC04 had hoped, and therefore is being downplayed? Maybe the campaign doesn't want any images of the transition that can make their way into anti-Bush ads (a la "Mission Accomplished"). Or is Bremer simply eager to flee the warzone before the real fighting starts?

There have been some pretty nasty diaries about Nader voters and supporters. I don't think anyone is served by calling Nader voters names, or spreading stereotypes about them (remember how Dean supporters were supposedly "privilaged, white and straight"?). This kind of infighting doesn't do anybody any good - except the right-wing bigots and corporate looters who benefit from a divided left.

Let's argue over tactics in a civilized way. I voted for Nader in 2000, but I now think that the best move for the left is to elect John Kerry - and I'll argue this point with today's Nader supporters. However, I respect the hesitation of many on the left to support someone who voted for the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, and NCLB. I'm prepared to do this, but some still hesitate. But we disagree on tactics, not the issues.

The concerns of Nader voters should not be dismissed. Nader's support in swing states (like my home state of Oregon) was substantial in 2000. Kucinich got double digit support in the Oregon primary - support that was meant to send a message to Kerry.

Kerry's response has been pretty positive. His campaign is starting to reach out to voters who want action on issues like health care reform and "free" trade-related job loss, as well as other issues that were left behind by Dems during the 1990s. Kerry's choice of running mate will also send a message - a message that I hope will bring even more disaffected Democrats back into our big tent.

I believe that the big tent that the DailyKos community represents is truly remarkable and a powerful tool for change in this country. However, the tent should be big enough to include those who have yet to be convinced of the efficacy of voting for John Kerry or other politicians that they still have serious disagreements with.

But let's work together, not call each other names, okay?