Bill Richardson on The Huffington Post

Steve Clemons: Who Is Hot And Who Was Blocked (Or Forgotten) At First White House State Dinner

2009-11-24T20:56:40Z

The White House just released the list of those attending the State Dinner honoring India Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Cool list actually. But not just because it's India night -- but because there are a lot of folks that could push other agendas in Obama Land.

Domestic Policy Council chief Melody Barnes, who recently expressed support for "gay marriage" will be there. I admire her and have been irritated by the pressure others in the White House operation have brought on her to retract or reframe her comments.

Gay iconic businessman David Geffen and his excellent partner Jeremy Lingvall will be there and should give Melody Barnes some support -- and to make their case to Michelle and Barack Obama that being absent in today's civil rights movement shouldn't be part of his presidency. Obama and team need to reconnect with the gay community which has a lot of doubt about his support of an end to Don't Ask, Don't Tell and for an end to other anti-gay discriminatory legislation.

But having Geffen and Lingvall at this dinner is a great move -- and was Rahm Emanuel's doing. I haven't been able to credit Emanuel with much lately -- but he did the right thing tonight.

On another front, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman will be there tonight -- and so too will be New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. The connection? Cuba.

Both strongly support moving the US-Cuba relationship into new territory and ending the restrictions on travel to Cuba for American citizens. Oddly, American citizens today can travel to North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, virtually anywhere in the world -- but because the Cold War still rages 90 miles off the US border, US citizens can't go to Cuba freely. This is a self-damaging restriction on American rights that should be ended -- and Berman and Bill Richardson are on the case. Look for them whispering in the President's ear.

After all, India joined 186 other nations in voting against us a few weeks go in the United Nations condemning the US embargo of Cuba.

Intelligence adviser to the President John Brennan will be there -- and so too will be his policy and political rival, White House Counsel Gregory Craig. Greg Craig is leaving the White House on January 10, but Obama really should begin talking to Craig right away about a new role. My suggestion is that he replace Israel/Palestine Envoy George Mitchell, who will not be at the dinner tonight.

Greg Craig would be excellent on the defining Middle East challenges facing the US -- and my suggestion is that we encourage Senator Mitchell to try his hand at brokering peace among warring White House factions around Obama and Rahm Emanuel.

On the journalistic front, Tom Friedman of the New York Times will be there -- and so too will Fareed Zakaria whose star continues to climb. Zakaria has largely been quite positive about the presidency of Barack Obama and not taken any substantial jabs at the White House -- but I suspect that after an invite like this one, he'll have to balance out his hyper-access with some substantial critique of the limited results of the Obama team's foreign policy accomplishments.

Some other cool names: Michele Flournoy, Louisian Governor Bobby Jindal, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, Hunter Biden, Jim Steinberg, Jack Lew, Under Secretary of State Bill Burns, the Afghanistan War Tax advocate Representative David Obey, OMB chief Peter Orszag, General Colin Powell, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, Ben Rhodes (very cool dude), US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, Vinod Shah and John Doerr, Amartya Sen, Steven Spielberg, oops -- and I forgot Brian Williams.

But some interesting folks are not there.

If I had any influence over the White House social secretary, I would have invited Steve Coll, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of the book that Barack Obama has been carrying around with him for 11 months, Ghost Wars. Coll has been one of the most articulate advocates of an India-Pakistan rapprochement that eventually decreases tensions in Afghanistan and the broader region. Coll and Obama went to Occidental College together -- and he would have been on my list for the evening.

Dennis Ross will be there -- but neither George Mitchell nor Richard Holbrooke, who is reportedly off skiing for the weekend. But it would seem to me that Holbrooke's portfolio is closer to India matters than what Ross is doing with Iran.

Where is Brent Scowcroft? Maybe the former National Security Adviser was busy tonight, but really -- he is a guy Obama turns to behind the scenes and should have been invited.

Zbigniew and Emilie Brzezinski are other obvious DC political personalities who are missing from the roster. Brzezinski's early endorsement of President Obama's campaign was significant -- and it is always good to have Brzezinski and Scowcroft on your side -- but neither will be at Obama's side tonight.

Two guys who should have definitely been there and somehow either kept themselves in the background or weren't invited are former National Security Council chief of staff Mark Lippert and current National Security Council chief of staff Denis McDonough. These guys for quite a while were the most significant axis of power in the foreign policy arena, and Obama trusts them. McDonough works extremely hard, as recently recounted in David Plouffe's book, The Audacity to Win, so may have been too busy. But come to think of it, David Plouffe is not on the list.

Eric Schmidt of Google would have been on my recommended list -- even though General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt is there. I would have not allowed Larry Summers to bring a guest -- and would have asked Paul Volcker to fill that seat.

Where are any of the Republicans for Obama? The three that got that movement going are philanthropist Rita Hauser, former Republican Senator turned independent Lincoln Chafee, and former House of Reps Republican internationalist Jim Leach. Not on the list!

I'd add Susan Eisenhower and General Wesley Clark. Missing in action both -- and they shouldn't be.

I am also surprised not to see Caroline Kennedy -- who may be done with the political scene as far as running for office, but America needs her at State Dinners!

For fun -- I'd include Jon Stewart and Bill Maher, and Arianna Huffington, but they are not on the list.

Gary Hart and former Defense Secretary William Cohen should really be there tonight -- both for the leadership they have shown in foreign policy, but also because they both are reservoirs of smart thinking on India.

Where are Chuck Hagel and David Boren -- the incoming co-chairs of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board....and where is R. Nicholas Burns??? When serving as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Nick Burns put the US-India nuclear deal together. He worked with Evan Bayh's father -- the much more progressive than Evan former Senator Birch Bayh, who should have been invited.

I'll stop there....but I could keep going. It's as much fun thinking about who is not there as who is.

Except for David Geffen and Jeremy Lingvall who will be the life of the party, I'm sure.

-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note

Cindy Padilla, New Mexico Cabinet Official, Resigns After DWI Arrest

2009-11-06T20:34:19Z

SANTA FE, N.M. — A top official in Gov. Bill Richardson's cabinet has resigned over a drunken driving arrest just days after she was appointed to a spot in President Barack Obama's administration.

Secretary of Aging and Long-Term Services Cindy Padilla submitted her resignation on Oct. 26. The governor's chief of staff requested the resignation because the administration has a zero tolerance policy for drunken driving, according to a Richardson spokeswoman.

Dave Maass: Former New Mexico Governor, Toney Anaya, Talks Death Penalty Politics

2009-09-25T17:56:02Z

New Mexico repealed the death penalty during the 2009 Legislative session, but since the lawmaking body is prohibited from enacting retroactive laws the two men currently on death row are still eligible for execution. Gov. Bill Richardson has said he would not commute the sentences of the remaining two individuals and last week the New Mexico Supreme Court declined to rule on whether it should finish what the Legislature began. In this week's Santa Fe Reporter I write about how the death penalty debate could effect the 2010 governor's race, since this decision may be up to Richardson's successors.

For historical context, here's my interview with Gov. Toney Anaya, who made human rights history in 1986 by commuting the death sentences of five men, essentially clearing death row. Anaya talks about the death penalty in election politics, the Terry Clark execution and how a governor manages such a heavy decision. Currently, Anaya currently heads up the New Mexico Office of Recovery and Reinvestment.

DM: Could you give me some historical perspective on the death penalty debate?

TA: It kind of reminds me of the old saying, the more things change the more they remain the same. It was in the gubernatorial elections of 1982 that the death penalty was a hot issue. There were four democrats, four republicans in the primary and I was the only one who was opposed to the deaht penalty.

It doesn't look like it hurt you any.

Well, I got the nomination and I subsequently won the election. During the general election campaign, it was an issue, but not just in the governor's race, it was an issue in a lot of races: legislative races, judicial races and so on. But I stood fast on my position.

What was your position?

Well, I was opposed to the death penalty and I made it very clear that I would not allow the execution of anybody while I was governor.

Could you tell me briefly why? Was it a religious thing?

I laid out the reasons pretty specifically, but there were a large number of them. Part of it was religious. I was brought up as a very strong Catholic, but it wasn't strictly just a religious issue. I was careful not to turn it into a religious issue during the campaign because I thought there were many other reasons to debate the issue. I think it's very costly. To be effective, in my opinion, a penalty has to be swift and certain. The death penalty is neither swift nor certain. At the time, we didn't know about DNA, but I long suspected that there were a lot innocent folks that were convicted of death penalty offenses, simply because they were either poor or a minority.

Do you think you swayed any people during the campaign?

I don't know. I wasn't trying to. I was open about my position and people either voted for me because of that or in spite of that. The polls in those days were very, very strongly in favor of the death penalty, so if anything it was going to hurt me,. Obviously it didn't hurt me enough too keep me from being elected. What To fast forward and then come back and fill in the details, what I found after I commuted the death sentences was that long after I left office, people who disagreed with the action told me that even though they disagreed with what I had done, they very much appreciated that I stood strong by my beliefs. Even my critics said they didn't find much honesty in government and they appreciated that I stood fast.

Take me through when your decision to commute the sentences.

While I was governor, a number of defense attorneys stopped appealing the death sentence because they knew I had pledged not to let their clients be executed, so they were preserving the death sentence appeals for after I left office. As a result, a couple of times they did not pursue the appeals. I criticized the defense attorneys for that.

So, they thought, 'We're just going to stop them right now because if it gets to that point...;

'Why waste our appeals now? Let's wait. Anaya's not going to let them die. We'll wait until he leaves office and then we'll start the appeal the process. We'll buy our clients more time.' I thought that was a very intellectually dishonest approach. If they honestly thought they had a good basis for appeal, other than just simply buying time, they should hae pursued it. The main point I wanted to make was not so much that, but that on a couple occasions I had to actually stay the executions of a couple of inmates because their appeals were not being pursued and they were subject to execution.

At what point did you decide you were goin to do the full commutations?

During the campaigns of 1986 for my successor, both the Republican and the Democratic nominees, as well as in the attorney general's race, the death penalty issue seemed to be the principle issue. In the summer of 1986, I seriously considered commuting the death sentences then just to take the issue out of the election and challenging the candidates to get back to important issues like the economy, educations and health care. I chose not to because it would have spilled over into a lot of other races. A number of judges I had appointed to vacancies and a number of legislators would have been caught up in the backlash and probably would've gotten defeated at the polls, so I chose not to.

So, you waited until after the election?

I waited to see who was going to get elected governor and even though both of them were supporters of the death penalty. The Democratic nominee, Ray Powell Sr was a little softer on the issue and I thought, if he got elected then maybe I could persuade him otherwise. After the election, I did meet with Gov-elect Garrey Carruthers. He denies having made this statement to me, but I very clearly remember him telling me, regarding the inmates on death row, that I better leave them alone, they belong to him. That just literally sent chills up my spine. He also indicated that the first piece of paper he wanted to sign upon being sworn in was a death warrant. The latter didn't disturb me much because that showed a lack of knowledge about the process because it doesn't work that fast. Chances are he would not have had the opportunity to in fact execute anybody, but I didn't want to take that chance. Even though I didn't share it with anybody at the time, even my staff or closest advisor, I had no doubt when I left that meeting what was I going to do. Then I chose Thanksgiving time as a symbolic time to do it and commute everybody on death row.

Do you still stand by that decision?

Absolutely. I feel even stronger about it now. I think a couple of things have happened with the passage of time. One, public opinion has shifted. When given an option of life imprisonment, which I'm not sure is the right solution either, and the death penalty, the majority of New Mexicans will support life imprisonment. That was not the case back in 1986. Secondly, with the advancement of DNA, there's been dozens of individuals all over the country that there were on death row that have proven to have been innocent.

How did you deal with the victims' families? I'm sure you probably got some backlash from the victims advocates groups.

Well, I got backlash from everybody. Even those who opposed the death penalty, like the religious groups--I was very crtiical then and I remain critical today of their reaction at the time. There were a coalition of religious groups that came to see me, encouraging me to do what I did and after I did it and all of the backlash--it was ugly--not a single voice stood up to defend what I did. I felt very isolated, but still felt comfortable in knowing that I had done the right thing. But yes, there was a lot of reaction.

Did you face it head on?

There's nothing you can do. There was nothing that I could have said or done that would have made any of the victims families feel any better. I felt for them, I really, really did, but the death penalty wasn't going to help them either.

Since then, there's already been one individual executed and there are two more on the row right now. Would you like to see the next governor to make the same move?

If it comes down to that. There's still appeals. On Astorga, there's still a trial. There's not a guilty verdict yet, must less a death penalty sentence. So, that one will still wind its way through. It could well be into a subsequent governor's term. It could be another five ten years before a governor has to deal with that.

But five to ten years--a two-term governor may have to deal with the two on death row right now.

It's a decision that every governor has to personally deal with--their own conscience, with their own standard of justice, with whatever it is that goes through their mind. I'm not going to be individually critical of any governor. I have throughout the years, not just in New Mexico but around the country, been asked to communicate with govenors who had individuals that were on the verge of being put to death. I've communicated with some in writing, others by telephone call. In New Mexico, I spoke to Gov. Johnson, before Terry Clark was executed.

Tell me about Terry Clark.

He had been charged and not yet convicted at the time that I had commuted the other death sentences.Hhis attorneys chose to plead him guilty to a death penalty offense at the end of my term. I cautioned them against doing that. They assumed that I would then commute his sentence. What happened after that proves that one of my criticisms of the death penalty was very much correct: The death penalty is very political. The sentencing judge at the time, who has since passed away,refused to sentence him until after I left office because he felt that if he was sentenced there was a possibility I would commute his sentence. The judge felt that he wasn't sentenced there wasn't anything I could do about. I actually had independent legal research perfomed and had concluded that there was a possibility that a governor infact had the authority to commute prior to sentencing. I just felt that given the enviroment at the time I would have probably just set off such a firestorm in the state that the state just simply could not have healed itself and gone on to take care of the rest of the business. So, I didn't do it. When he was executed, that weighed very heavily on my mind. Could I have prevented it and should I have done it?

How did you feel when you heard the Legislature had finally passed the death penalty repeal.

Ecstatic. That's the way these things go. Some legilsation is very incremental. It take years, sometimes decades, and for this kind of issue it takes decades, so I felt even more vindicated that the actions I took helped pave the way. It helped soften the approach.

It is fair to imagine if one of these two guys does come up for execution, 4 years, 8 years, 12 years from now, that the sitting governor will get a call from you?

I'm sure he'll get a visit.

Cross-posted at SFReeper.com

John R. Bohrer: The GOP Is Too Crazy To Be Racist

2009-09-16T14:28:03Z

Not to go all Maureen Dowd on you, but today's Republican Party is a lot like the line from that old Brando movie, The Wild One. Somebody asks Brando, "What're you rebelling against, Johnny?" And he says, "Whaddya got?"

With all due respect to former President Carter, he is wrong when he says that "an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man... that he's African American."

Perhaps someone who grew up in the rural South as Carter did is more likely to see race as the basis for the Republicans' outrageous behavior over the last few months. It is undeniable -- undeniable -- that people like Matt Drudge and Glenn Beck are consciously stoking racial fears.

And yet, the color of the President's skin does not matter to the lunatics dictating the direction of the Republican Party. I mean, it matters in that it's icing on the cake -- but they were baking regardless of all that.

Scores of Republican activists would've accused President Hillary Clinton of setting up "death panels." Rallies would've been filled with Hitler mustaches painted on the portrait of President John Edwards. A grandstanding GOP congressman would've shouted "You lie!" at President Bill Richardson.

Why? Think back to the fall of 2007 (even earlier than that, maybe). Hillary Clinton was the Democratic front-runner, staking out a cautious path to the White House. And what did we see on what seemed like every Republican website? Big ads for black t-shirts showing Hillary with a red slash over her neck, sandwiched between the words, "RE-DEFEAT COMMUNISM; 2008."

The point is that there is no method to their madness. The hardcore whatever-they-are's at these rallies would be there no matter what. How did anyone ever get the idea that these protests are actually about something? And I don't just mean policies or race, I mean anything.

It just goes to show that if you say something loud enough and long enough, you will drown out the truth. Remember how these rallies started organizing during President Obama's first month in office? It was so very clear that they were about nothing -- that they were parties for sore losers and extremists. Yay! Bring some crazy signs! Wrap yourself in the flag and call everyone else a traitor! Woo-hoo! The media, politicians, people in general saw all that for what it was: a bunch of loonies who were bummed that the guy they hate won.

That's one thing. People like that have always been around. They will always be around. What's different is that a political party has never adopted them before.

Because as the rallies met again and again, the Republican Party and their echo chamber got even more into it each time. This was, they said, proof of grassroots opposition to the President's policies. Wrong. It got bigger because Republican bigwigs realized they couldn't compete with Democrats on ideas; that Americans will reject the Bush-Cheney portfolio they continue to use today. So, they figured out something not-so-secret: policy discussions make for boring TV; loud anti-everything rallies make for great TV!... Who needs ideas, anyway?

So they're putting everything they've got into feeding this beast of boisterousness. Are there some racists out among the crowd? Absolutely. Is race an overtone? You bet. But -- and it's a big 'but' -- is "the overwhelming portion" of it based on race as President Carter contends? No.

Source: Bill Richardson To Be Cleared In Fed Pay-To-Play Probe

2009-08-27T08:38:44Z

SANTA FE, N.M. — A dark cloud over Gov. Bill Richardson's political future has lifted after the federal government's decision against indictments in a pay-to-play investigation that prompted the governor to withdraw his nomination as U.S. commerce secretary earlier this year.

Political analysts said the yearlong probe's end could even revive Richardson's chances of finding a place in President Barack Obama's administration in the future. The governor's second term expires at the end of 2010 and he can't seek re-election.

North Korea Diplomats To Meet With Gov. Bill Richardson

2009-08-19T00:59:31Z

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that information her husband brought back from North Korea has been "extremely helpful" by providing a window into what's happening in the reclusive country.

But it didn't change the Obama administration's position on North Korea, which is under pressure from the U.S. and its allies to end its nuclear weapons program.

Jackson Williams: Old Home Week: Bill and Al, Together Again

2009-08-05T14:57:10Z

Bill Clinton gets the girl(s), and he and Al Gore are a team again. Let's party like it's 1995!

We all remember the tension of 2000. Clinton's impeachment had saddled Gore in the race against George Bush, and internal polls showed that Clinton hurt as much as helped on the campaign trail. As a result, he didn't do much because Gore's team was so concerned about it.

In fact, Gore didn't win Clinton's Arkansas that year. True, Gore didn't win his own Tennessee, either, but it was becoming more Republican by then. Of the two states, there is general consensus that Clinton could more easily have delivered Arkansas for his would-be successor. Those six electoral votes alone would have given Gore the election, even with conceding Florida to Bush.

There seemed to be some antagonism between the two men for years afterward, although both denied it. In 2008, Gore notably didn't endorse Hillary, but at least remained neutral and didn't endorse her main opponent until primary season was over.

Against this backdrop, Gore was the first person Clinton greeted when he walked off the plane in Los Angeles with the two American journalists who work for the former vice-president's "Current TV." The two men shared a bear hug that actually lasted a while, complete with back rub. It was meaningful.

Of course, unlike Gore, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson did make an endorsement in the '08 primary, and it wasn't Hillary. This came just six weeks after her husband had watched the Super Bowl with Richardson at the governor's mansion in Santa Fe. In his second term, President Clinton had named Richardson U.N. Ambassador and then Secretary of Energy. That, as they say, was then.

Maureen Dowd notes in her Wednesday NY Times column that as the drama played out yesterday in North Korea, "Richardson, labeled 'Judas' by James Carville after he endorsed Barack Obama in the campaign, was reduced to the supporting role of CNN commentator."

To his credit, Richardson was no doubt helpful leading up to this latest mission, having made several trips there himself. He must have provided insight into dealing with the Kim Jong-il regime.

Kudos to the Obama administration and all who quietly midwifed this effort. After Bush put the kibosh on direct dealings with North Korea, leading to eight long years of failure to stop its nuclear ambitions, it's good to see the art of realpolitik take center stage again.

Meanwhile, which of these two hugs warms your heart:

Dave Maass: Gov. Bill Richardson Rejects Laura Ling/Euna Lee Public Records Request

2009-07-18T11:25:34Z

More than two weeks ago, I filed a public records request with Gov. Bill Richardson's office with the purpose of investigating the extent to which Richardson has been involved in negotiations with North Korea regarding journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee. The video journalists are imprisoned in North Korea and facing 12 years of hard labor on charges of illegal entry and unspecified "hostile acts."

The reason for the request: For all the speculation that Richardson might be tapped to negotiate their release, they could just be rumors or political exaggeration. Plus, after the NY Times' blackout of coverage of David Rohde's kidnapping, it's important for the press to watchdog itself.

In addition, I requested all documents and e-mails related to interviews with the national media on the issue. The reason: We wanted to ascertain to what extent taxpayer resources were used to facilitate media appearances on non-New Mexican issues.

The Governor's office flatly rejected the entire public records request. Here is the text of the text of the letter (and here's the pdf).

Dear Mr. Maass:

I write in response to your Inspection of Public Records Request dated June 30, 2009. In that request, you asked for "all emails, letters and other correspondence regarding journalists Euna Lee and Laura Ling, including requests from national media to comment on the journalists."

We are unable to provide records to you at this time based on the countervailing public policy exception. The documents you requested to inspect are related to an on-going and very sensitive international matter. Disclosure at this time could possibly jeopardize continued diplomatic efforts to secure the safe release of the two journalists.

Sincerely

Marcie Maestas

Records Custodian

I understand the argument for confidentiality to ensure the journalists' safety -- but will someone explain to me: a) Why is it OK for him to speculate about it publicly on Rachel Maddow if it's so sensitive? and b) Why is it crucial that his correspondence with the media remain confidential?

Crossposted at SFReeper.com.
Read more: Kim Jong Il, Journalists, Imprisonment, Laura Ling, North Korea, Rachel Maddow, Euna Lee, Bill Richardson, Media News

Ben Fractenberg: We're Going To The Moon...Again

2009-05-29T16:07:30Z
The screen goes dark. Rousing orchestral music fills the room. Text appears out of the blackness:

We Took A Giant Leap...

Then the image of a pockmarked grey surface emerges.

It's Time To Take Another Giant Leap

A spacecraft zooms past the earth. The music gets louder.

Is this the trailer for a new end-of-the-world movie? Is Jerry Bruckheimer now producing YouTube videos? Or could it be that...

We're Going Back To The Moon

That's right, from the people who brought you the 1969 moon landing comes a sequel. Let's call it, The Moon 2: This Time We Mean Business. And like most sequels we are left with one tiny little question: For the love of God, why? Did Neil Armstrong forget something up there? Do we think after 40 years it might not be a lifeless piece of rock anymore? Maybe there's a water park now!

Aren't there some bigger problems we're facing at the moment, like, I don't know, the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression! Unemployment just hit 8.9%. GM is bankrupt. Jay Z poured tap water on women in his last video.

I'm just saying, maybe we need to get our priorities straight. One in six American children live in poverty, according to Save the Children, a non-partisan organization. Just imagine how many school lunches you could buy for the billions of dollars it's going to take to let a couple astronauts bounce around in zero gravity.

I'm all for scientific exploration, don't get me wrong. I'm curious, just like everyone else, what's out there in space. But don't we need to put all our resources into a crisis going on right here instead of going out there? And it's a not even a new place out there. Space is ginormous (In case you're wondering, 'ginormous' is indeed a scientific measure of space. If you added up the square footage of all the houses featured on MTV Cribs, ginormous is as least twice as big as that.) It's like the vastest thing there is, and we are sending people back to the one minuscule spot we've already been!

Actually, there could be one thing that would sell me on this whole Moon thing. What if we sent up all the CEO's of the banks that sold mortgage backed securities to pension plans? That might be worth it. We could get someone to sponsor the whole thing so the taxpayers don't have to shell out a dime. Hey, Richard Branson! Then we could show it on Pay-Per-View and send all the proceeds to people who lost their life savings in the stock market.

Who's with me? Let's start a letter writing campaign, or perhaps an online petition. I'm sure MoveOn.org is looking for something fun to do now that the election is over.

And what if we are unsuccessful and NASA goes through with this little stunt? I say we do what Americans always do with sequels and wait for the DVD.

Read more: Neil Armstrong, The Great Depression, Nasa, MoveOn.Org, Jerry Bruckheimer, MTV Cribs, Moon, Subprime Mortgage Crisis, Save the Children, Bill Richardson, 1969 Moon Landing, Comedy News

T. Boone Pickens: Wind Power Finally Getting Its Due

2009-05-22T15:43:34Z
Earlier this month I made a point of going to WINDPOWER 2009, the world's largest conference on wind energy. Yes, it was in the Windy City, but the truth is it's not always in Chicago. Next year's conference will be here in Dallas and you need to put it on your calendar.

A decade ago you could have packed everyone who showed up at an event like this in a pint-sized 7-11. Those days are gone. Last year, attendance at this event topped 13,000. This year? More than 23,000. And it wasn't just exhibitors (though there were close to 2,000 of them there as well). The roster of key policymakers who participated at WINDPOWER 2009 was impressive, including Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghof. All of them echoed the statements made by President Obama that alternative energy and renewables are important elements in this administration's energy plan.

That's not just sound energy policy but it's good for the economy as well. Business is booming in the wind energy sector, and you know who is most keenly aware of that? America's governors. Over the last year as I've been promoting the Pickens Plan, I've met wind state governors such as Brian Schweitzer of Montana, Bill Richardson of New Mexico, and Jon Huntsman of Utah. Back when she was Governor of Kansas, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius hosted the very first Pickens Plan Town Hall Meeting in Topeka.

But what really stood out was the governors who attended WINDPOWER in Chicago were not from traditional wind power states. They were from Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, and of course, Illinois. If you take a look at the Energy Department's wind map, you'll see that these states are not in the Wind Corridor, which runs the length of the Great Plains from the Texas Panhandle to the Canadian border. Yet, they are profiting from wind energy, thanks to the enormous number of job that are being created to manufacture turbines and other equipment, build infrastructure, and improve efficiency. These states have a vested interest in wind energy.

We all do. Right now there are wind farms and manufacturing facilities in 48 out of 50 states. While our country is fighting its way out of a recession, this industry and others in the burgeoning green economy are bright spots, creating permanent, good-paying jobs, putting people to work, and helping America cement its status as a global leader in the energy industry.

This is one of the basic principles of the Pickens Plan, and it goes straight to the heart of what I've been talking about since I launched the plan last July. Right here in America, we've got plenty of energy waiting to be tapped. The only problem is that for the last four decades we haven't had the leadership to harness it or develop it or drill for it. Instead, we took the easy way out. Cheap imported oil became the crutch that everyone leaned on, only now we know it's not cheap anymore.

Last year, as our economy stalled, we spent $475 billion on imported oil. Can you believe that? I can't. Half a trillion dollars. The greatest transfer of wealth in recorded history. And to make matters worse we still haven't learned our lesson. According to figures just released, our trade deficit on oil imports widened in March for the first time in eight months. We're still importing more than two-thirds of the oil we consume, and that's got to stop.

The purpose of the Pickens Plan was to put a lot of ideas on the table in order to help our country develop the energy plan it so desperately needs and deserves. Wind energy is one of the best, and if you don't believe me come to Dallas next year and see for yourself at WINDPOWER 2010.

Read more: T. Boone Pickens, Ken Salazar, Jon Wellinghof, Steven Chu, Jon Huntsman, Kathleen Sebelius, Brian Schweitzer, Bill Richardson, Evolving Energy Tech, Green News

Times Piece On Rattner Scandal Makes No Mention Of Ties To Richardson

2009-04-22T13:47:40Z
With reporting from Marcus Baram

Yesterday's New York Times featured a story on the unfolding investigation into private equity firm Quadrangle Group and its co-founder, Steven Rattner, who is alleged to have played a part in a substantial kickback scheme involving the New York State pension fund. Quadrangle was one of many firms to have allegedly made pay-to-play arrangements with the pension fund, arrangements which are now being probed from Andrew Cuomo's office and the SEC. Meanwhile, if you've not been keeping score, Rattner has since decamped from Quadrangle to head up President Barack Obama's ongoing auto bailout negotiations. Which is just great, I guess!

Anyway, yesterday's paper made good and careful note of some of Rattner's political connections. He's pals with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, for instance, who told the paper that Quadrangle was doing "a great job" managing his fortunes. But the paper delves deeply into Rattner's connections with the State of New Mexico, and one of its Democratic Senators, Jeff Bingaman:

Mr. Rattner forged close personal ties in New Mexico, which invested $20 million in Quadrangle. He met with Senator Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat from that state, on at least one occasion, according to a person with knowledge of the meeting. From about 2004 until early this year, Quadrangle also employed the senator's son as an associate.

A spokeswoman for Senator Bingaman said that the senator's son did not raise money for Quadrangle, but instead helped make investments. Senator Bingaman was not involved in the pension process, she said.

Funny that the good state of New Mexico should be so prominently mentioned, absent an important connection: ~~former~~ [Sorry. Not "former." I have no idea why I typed that!] New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. As it turns out, Richardson has some significant ties to Rattner, as well as the aforementioned "pension process."

From the New Mexico Independent:

Steven Rattner, the head of President Barack Obama's auto-bailout program and a man who has been linked to a New York pension scandal that has tentacles in New Mexico, gave $5,000 to Gov. Bill Richardson's 2002 gubernatorial campaign and $15,000 to Richardson's 2006 re-election bid.

That's according to the money-in-politics Web site followthemoney.org.

Richardson heads the State Investment Council (SIC), which manages the state's investments. In October 2005, the SIC voted to invest $20 million with Quadrangle Group LLC, according to minutes of the meeting. At the time of the 2002 and 2006 campaign contributions, Rattner was a managing principal in the company, which he left in February of this year to take the auto-bailout job.

And, as the NM Indy's Heath Haussamen helpfully reminds, what is it that scotched Richardson's own appointment to Commerce? Allegations that he participated in a pay-to-play scandal. All of which seems to be at least as worthy of mention as Jeff Bingaman's entanglements.

RELATED:
New Mexico Governor Raised $197,300 From Brokers, Investors [Bloomberg]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]
Read more: Quadrangle Group, Rattner Quadrangle, Jeff Bingaman, Steve Rattner, Steven Rattner, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Media News

Pension Fund Scandal Expands: Rattner's Ties To Bill Richardson

2009-04-22T11:59:19Z
UPDATED

In journalistic shorthand, this story's got legs.

The saga of Obama administration auto czar Steve Rattner and his possible involvement in a pay-to-play scheme involving New York's massive pension funds just keeps expanding and provides a window into the extreme risks taken on Wall Street that led to the financial crisis.

Rattner's investment firm, Quadrangle, also managed investments for pension funds in New Mexico, California and Pennsylvania.

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has launched a probe of the conduct of so-called "placement agents," who get fees for helping money managers land deals to handle the investments of New York state's $122 billion state pension fund. Additionally, the New Mexico Attorney General's office is closely tracking the role of Quadrangle and the use of such brokers in their own state, the Huffington Post has learned.

"We're monitoring it at this point, keeping abreast of it, seeing if there are any reasons for us to get involved," says a spokesman, adding that members of the office have been in touch with Cuomo's office in New York.

In both states, indicted broker Hank Morris played a role in helping Quadrangle land deals to help manage the pension funds' billions.

Morris and New York's former deputy comptroller David Loglisci were charged last month with allegedly soliciting millions of dollars of kickbacks from firms managing money. The inquiry in New York initially focused on the role of former state comptroller Alan Hevesi and has now expanded to include New York City comptroller Bill Thompson.

Rattner met with Morris in 2004 about a finder's fee for landing the state pension fund deal and his firm later paid the broker $1.1 million, according to numerous reports. Quadrangle also paid finders fees to Morris's firm, Searle & Co., for an $85 million investment from the New York City Employee Retirement System and a $10 million investment from the Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension System, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Morris helped Quadrangle secure a $20 million commitment from New Mexico's State Investment Council. And Quadrangle hired New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingaman's son, John, as an investment analyst though Bingaman has stressed that he never discussed the state pension fund with his son. The senator has received $2,000 in campaign contributions from Rattner but Bingaman claims he didn't know the financier and only met Rattner once, when he was meeting his son for lunch and stopped by the Quadrangle offices in New York, reports the New Mexico Independent.

Neither Rattner nor Quadrangle has been accused of wrongdoing and the firm says that it is cooperating with Cuomo's office.

The burgeoning scandal threatens to expose the inner workings of the Democratic Party's fundraising machine -- Rattner, a longtime Democratic contributor and close confidant of the Clintons, donated $20,000 to New Mexico governor Bill Richardson. Another money manager and major Democratic fundraiser is Leo Hindery, founder of InterMedia Advisors, LLC, who paid broker William Howell $125,000 to help arrange the deal to manage state pension funds. Hindery also contributed to Richardson, donating $50,381, reports Bloomberg News.

On Wednesday, New York banned the use of placement agents or lobbyists in investments by the state's pension fund, and the Securities and Exchange Commission may adopt new rules to bar money managers from paying to win state business.

The growing scandal also exposes how state pension funds, which handle tens of billions of dollars, were pushed into risky investments by money managers.

The former chief investment officer of New Mexico's Education Retirement Board claims that the board lost $90 million by investing in subprime mortgages and collateralized debt obligations. In a lawsuit filed last July against the board on behalf of the state, Frank Foy also claimed that he was pressured to award contracts and make investments that would reward Richardson's campaign contributors.

Foy accuses the defendants, which include such major investment banks as Citigroup, UBS, Credit Agricole SA, and JP Morgan Chase, of selling the state "a worthless combination of liars' loans, lethal leverage, and toxic waste."

Among the claims described in the complaint, Foy says that one firm, Vanderbilt, misled the board by falsely stating that the CDOs were backed by high quality mortgages, that the risks were adequately covered by insurance or credit swaps, and that the investment was protected by an understanding of the underlying collateral.

One of the most damaging claims was:

Defendants had a mutual agreement, or understanding, or course of conduct to tout the other defendants' CDO products and jointly promote each others' products and include them in their own CDOs and portfolios. The defendants jointly acted to conceal the falsity of their claims about the products they jointly removed, as they all profited from the sale of these unsound products. The defendants jointly acted to inflate the prices of these products.

Foy claims that he was falsely accused of "sexual harassment" and producing a "hostile work environment" and forced to retire after 15 years with the board.

A spokesman for Richardson denied the charges, calling Foy "a disgruntled former employee who was accused of serious misconduct during his time as a state employee."

The abuse of such investments has spread in recent years - trustees of public pension funds in Ohio, Illinois and California have been accused of kickbacks and extortion.

And in Detroit, pension funds lost $40 million when their investment adviser put their money in collateralized loan obligations, complicated debt securities backed by commercial loans, reports the Detroit Free Press.

The scope of the pension funding crisis threatens many state governments, which have unfunded obligations of $445 billion for health benefits for state workers, according to a recent analysis by USA Today.

And ironically, the funding shortfall could actually push the funds to make risky investments, according to a report by the Employee Benefit Research Institute:

"Under current accounting rules, underfunded public pension plan sponsors face some perverse incentives to maintain aggressive or risky investments, and that public plan sponsors are unlikely to significantly shift toward safer but lower-return investment policies, at least in the short run."

Read more: Rattner Pension Fund, Pension Fund Scandal, Steven Rattner, Steve Rattner, Rattner New Mexico, Pension Fund Kickbacks, Quadrangle Pension Funds, Bill Richardson, Business News

John Terzano: Wrongful Convictions Are Still Possible in New Mexico

2009-03-29T22:41:30Z
This week, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico signed legislation repealing the death penalty, replacing it with life in prison without the possibility of parole. Governor Richardson based his decision on a lack of "confidence in the criminal justice system as it currently operates" and the very real possibility of wrongfully convicting and executing an innocent person. By repealing the death penalty, Governor Richardson's action this week eliminates the risk of New Mexico ever executing an innocent person. Governor Richardson should be commended for taking this action.

The question now is whether Governor Richardson will take the necessary steps to eliminate the causes that lead to wrongful convictions. While I agree that life without parole gives New Mexico the opportunity to correct mistakes when wrongful convictions occur, I am concerned about the very real risk that innocent people will be wrongfully convicted and now sentenced to life without parole in New Mexico.

I commend Governor Richardson for his recognition that New Mexico's criminal justice system is "inherently defective." The Governor recognizes the systemic problems that have led to wrongful convictions in New Mexico stating, "[e]vidence, including DNA evidence, can be manipulated. Prosecutors can still abuse their powers. We cannot ensure competent defense counsel for all defendants." Repealing the death penalty can prevent these systemic problems from leading to the execution of an innocent person. The next step is to prevent these errors from happening and sending an innocent person to prison.

The challenge for Governor Richardson is to take steps to protect the liberty interests of the citizens of New Mexico, and address the problems that he recognizes still exist in his state. The Governor recognizes "competent defense attorneys are not assigned to all defendants," yet New Mexico has failed to adopt the ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel -- standards recognized by the Supreme Court. Governor Richardson recognizes that "evidence can be manipulated," yet New Mexico lacks any laws mandating critically needed oversight and accreditation requirements for public forensic laboratories. The leading cause of wrongful convictions is faulty eyewitness testimony. Procedures have been developed that are proven to enhance the accuracy of eyewitness identifications and improve the criminal justice system as a whole. As such, the Governor should follow through with his commitment to fairness in the criminal justice by supporting the Eyewitness Identification Reform Act, a bill currently pending in the New Mexico legislature. Governor Richardson recognizes that prosecutors have the ability to abuse their power, but no state, including New Mexico, has an effective system of prosecutorial accountability -- as illustrated in The Justice Project's forthcoming policy review on this issue.

Governor Richardson's responsibility to reform the criminal justice system in his state does not end with repeal of the death penalty. As the Governor stated, we live "[i]n a society which values individual life and liberty above all else." The state of New Mexico has an obligation to protect the lives and liberty of its citizens through a criminal justice system that yields fair and accurate verdicts. I applaud the Governor for his commitment to the fair administration of justice and hope that he continues to ensure that life and liberty are both protected in New Mexico.

John F. Terzano is President of The Justice Project, a nonpartisan organization that works to increase fairness and accuracy in the criminal justice system.
Read more: Wrongful Conviction, The Justice Project, Death Penalty, New Mexico, Bill Richardson, Politics News

Feingold To Death Penalty: Drop Dead

2009-03-19T17:38:54Z
Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) reintroduced legislation Thursday to abolish the death penalty at the federal level. The "Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act of 2009" comes just after New Mexico governor Bill Richardson's decision to ban capital punishment in his state.

"I oppose the death penalty because it is inconsistent with basic American principles of justice, liberty and equality," Feingold said in a press release, which notes Richardson's decision and also that capital punishment is illegal in 123 countries around the world. The release says the practice puts the United States in some unseemly company: "In 2007, only China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan executed more people than the United States."

The full release:

FEINGOLD REINTRODUCES BILL TO ABOLISH FEDERAL DEATH PENALTY

Feingold's Longtime Effort Comes as New Mexico Repeals Death Penalty

Washington, D.C. - As momentum builds in states to abolish the death penalty, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold reintroduced legislation today to abolish the death penalty at the federal level. Feingold's Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act of 2009 would put an immediate halt to federal executions and forbid the use of the death penalty as a sentence for violations of federal law. The use of the death penalty has been questioned by a range of prominent voices across the country, recently repealed in New Mexico and New Jersey, and abolished by 123 countries around the world. Feingold's bill would stop executions on the federal level, which are part of a death penalty system that has proven to be ineffective, wrought with racial disparities, and alarmingly costly.

"I oppose the death penalty because it is inconsistent with basic American principles of justice, liberty and equality," Feingold said. "Governor Bill Richardson and the New Mexico legislature's action to abolish the death penalty in that state adds to the growing momentum behind ending the death penalty in this country. It is truly unfortunate that we are in a shrinking minority of countries that continue to allow state-sponsored executions."

Feingold is not alone in his opposition to the death penalty. A range of prominent voices have questioned the system in recent years, including former FBI Director William Sessions, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, law enforcement officials and many others across the political spectrum. In 2007, only China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan executed more people than the United States.

In 2007, Feingold chaired a Senate Judiciary Committee, Constitution Subcommittee hearing on oversight of the federal death penalty that highlighted the lack of transparency at the Department of Justice in the decision-making process about the death penalty and continuing problems of racial disparities in the federal system. Also in 2007, the American Bar Association called for a nationwide moratorium on capital punishment based on its detailed study of state death penalty systems, which found racial disparities, convictions based on bad evidence, grossly inadequate indigent defense systems, and a host of other problems with the implementation of capital punishment in this country.

Feingold is not alone in his opposition to the death penalty. A range of prominent voices have questioned the system in recent years, including former FBI Director William Sessions, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, law enforcement officials and many others across the political spectrum. In 2007, only China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan executed more people than the United States.

In 2007, Feingold chaired a Senate Judiciary Committee, Constitution Subcommittee hearing on oversight of the federal death penalty that highlighted the lack of transparency at the Department of Justice in the decision-making process about the death penalty and continuing problems of racial disparities in the federal system. Also in 2007, the American Bar Association called for a nationwide moratorium on capital punishment based on its detailed study of state death penalty systems, which found racial disparities, convictions based on bad evidence, grossly inadequate indigent defense systems, and a host of other problems with the implementation of capital punishment in this country.
Read more: Russ Feingold, Capital Punishment, Abolition, Death Penalty, New Mexico, Bill Richardson, Politics News

Carlos Watson: March Madness in the White House: NCAA Picks from Obama, Clinton, Biden, and More

2009-03-18T23:16:48Z
Ah, March. My favorite time of year. I've been to the Super Bowl and the NBA Finals, but no sporting event compares to the NCAA basketball playoffs (better known as "March Madness"). The buzzer-beaters, the storylines, the way one game can change a young college player's life forever -- the drama comes in a frenzy these first four days, steadily building to the Monday night championship game a few weeks from now. And I'll be glued to every minute of it.

When I'm not gorging on national politics, that is.

March poses a serious challenge -- how do I balance all of my reading and writing and thinking about politics with incessantly following the NCAAs? Right now, for example, I've got Syracuse's free-throw percentage (64) floating around in my head alongside AIG's bonuses ($165 million) -- two totally disgraceful numbers. Imagine how hard it must be for Obama's famously basketball-crazed inner circle to manage the pressures of the White House during what must be their favorite three weeks on the sports calendar. The president has already announced his Final Four, but who do you think his cabinet members and advisers picked to win the championship? I assume that, like most of us, they'll decide with their hearts:

1. Barack Obama's Winner: Louisville Cardinals
They both flew under the radar for a while, only to pick up steam as their campaigns progressed. They've each got a unique style--Obama would rather work with Republicans than punish them for being in the minority, while Louisville's star point-forward Terrence Williams would rather get an assist than score himself. The Cardinals just won the Big East regular season and tournament titles--the primary and general election, if you will. Now it's time for the real work. Obama's approval ratings are high, and so are Louisville's chances of winning the Big Dance. But to be successful, both will have to pass some serious tests. [Watch Obama fill out his bracket.] [UPDATE: This post was written before the President picked North Carolina.]

2. Hillary Clinton: Pittsburgh Panthers
Both were tantalizingly close to the top spot. Both are tough as nails. Both have turned their losses into motivation for future success, and both expect to end up on top down the line. For Pitt, that could come during the first week of April. Clinton may have to wait a little while longer.

3. Tim Geithner: University of North Carolina Tar Heels
UNC was expected to dominate this season. Geithner was hailed as the savior for our ailing economy. Neither happened. Carolina enters the tournament with star point guard Ty Lawson hurt, while Geithner has struggled mightily to combat the worst economic crisis in 80 years with a skeleton staff. People are placing bets on when both will make their exits. Unfortunately for the treasury secretary, the odds are shifting toward his coming soon.

4. Joe Biden: Morehead State Eagles
OK, so the economy is in shambles. And Louisville will probably stomp Morehead by 50. But you know what? Joe Biden and the Eagles are punch drunk just to be in the game. Look at that enthusiasm!

5. Reggie Love: Duke Blue Devils
This one isn't much of a stretch: Love, Obama's "body man" and HuffPo's Hottest White House Employee, was the Duke captain in 2005.

6/7. Tom Daschle and Bill Richardson: Virginia Tech Hoakies and San Diego State Aztecs
Daschle and Richardson were each one bonehead move away from playing a huge role in this administration. VT and San Diego State, because of their own failings down the stretch, had their bubbles popped on Selection Sunday and lost the chance to make a run in the tourney. Regrets all around.

8. Robert Gates: Memphis Tigers
One of the few holdovers from the previous administration, Secretary of Defense Gates has been here before. So has Memphis. The runner-up in last year's tournament, the Tigers have a trio of seniors that have won more college games together than any tandem in history. In the Final Four will be played, or in the war room, that experience could be the difference.

9. Eric Shinseki: Syracuse Orangemen
In one of the great games in college basketball history, Syracuse beat UConn last week in six overtimes. Amazingly, the Orange didn't lead in any of the first five extra periods--they just kept finding a way to come back when it counted. Remind you of anyone? Shinseki feuded publicly with then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on the Iraq war -- Shinseki believed we needed more troops--and refused to back down, even as his stature at the Pentagon diminished and it became clear that he would retire in 2003 at the end of his term as Army Chief of Staff. Now he's back, leading a department tasked with revolutionizing the support network for the thousands of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

10. Hilda Solis: Utah State
As I wrote this week on MSNBC.com, Hilda Solis is my pick for the breakout star from the Obama administration. Now is a particularly important moment for the department of labor, with green jobs at the top of the President's agenda and the fight over unionization about to rumble. Solis, the first Latina cabinet member in U.S. history, should provide leadership on issues beyond her department as well. Utah State, meanwhile, is my Cinderella pick in the tourney. Led by an unconventional star--26-year-old high school dropout Gary Wilkinson -- 11-seed Utah could easily make the Sweet 16.

Which team tugs at your heart? Without my beloved Stanford Cardinal, I'm lost. Let me know your picks: twitter.com/carloswatson.
Read more: 2009 Ncaa Tournament, March Madness, Hillary Clinton, Reggie Love, Tim Geithner, Barack Obama, Hilda Solis, Tom Daschle, Obama Ncaa Bracket, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Politics News

Will Durst: The Best Cabinet Money Can't Buy

2009-02-20T09:48:08Z
It was weird to hear the words that flew out of Barack Obama's mouth when asked to comment on one of the four or five or FORTY of his Cabinet appointments that were forced to pull out before their confirmation hearings commenced.

"I screwed up."

Unh. Yeah. You did. Big time. Like you were brandishing a Phillips head the size of an eighteen-wheeler mounted on six-story scaffolding surrounding bevel gear teeth normally used to rotate observatories. But how nice to hear you admit it. Not to disparage any of your predecessors, but it's a refreshing citrusy change, if you know what I mean and I know you do.

Now, obviously its not the President's fault when his staff selects candidates less qualified for a Cabinet position than a Catholic convent receptionist meets the criteria for bouncer in a biker bar, but for crum's sake, dude, you got to start vetting the people you got vetting people for you. You know what I mean. Get someone you trust to vet the people you have vetting the people who are in charge of vetting your appointments. Or you could even... nah, that should be good enough.

Two Secretary of Commerce nominees have slunk away like hyenas chastised from a zebra carcass by a pride of dusty lionesses. Governor Bill Richardson, a Democrat under investigation for doing something bad. Pissing off the Clintons, I think it was. The other was Senator Judd Gregg, a Republican under suspicion of pissing off other Republicans by being part of a Cabinet with a Clinton in it. So, once again, it's all about the Clintons. Which is just the way they like it.

Gregg had decided to take the job only if the Democratic Governor of the Granite State agreed to appoint a Republican in his stead. Which is not a deal. Because deal making is a bad thing and can get you impeached. This was a good thing. Similar to a deal, but different in so many subtle yet vital ways.

The new Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner, forgot to pay his taxes and now he's in charge of the Department in charge of the IRS. So we got that going for us. From this day forward, any of us gets busted for any sort of tax irregularity, all we got to do is whip out a picture of the Sec Treas and say- "Just following the big guy's lead." And if you believe that, then let me introduce you to my good friend Bernie Madoff, who is going to make us a bundle.

Finally, former Senator Tom Daschle told the press he was sorry he didn't pay his taxes. $128,000 wort of sorry. Now I don't know much, but I'm pretty sure once you get three digits left of the comma, "sorry" doesn't cut it anymore. No wonder the Democrats are so adamant about how the rich don't want to pay taxes. Its knowledge that stems from personal experience.

Of course, this could all be just a clever ploy by the Obama folks to raise money. See, the deal is, they appoint a whole series of deadbeats who are forced to pay their back taxes and pretty soon this whole stimulus thing is totally covered. Next up: Wesley Snipes for Commerce, Chuck Berry for Interior and Willie Nelson for Agriculture. Who will change the Department motto to: "Smoke em if you got em." Advice the President may be taking to heart on the South Lawn as we speak.

Read more: Judd Gregg, Commerce Secretary, Barack Obama, Obama Cabinet Woes, Tim Geithner, Bill Richardson, Obama's Cabinet, Comedy News

Lee Stranahan: I Hereby Nominate Myself for Commerce Secretary

2009-02-12T16:50:32Z
President Obama is 0 for 2 trying to find a commerce secretary. Bill Richardson quit. Judd Gregg quit. So as a service to the President, I am throwing myself into the fray and officially declaring my willingness to be nominated as the next Secretary Of Commerce.

I will be "the People's Commerce Secretary," since I have no formal education or relevant experience and since the last grade I actually completed was eighth. I don't own a suit, have a distinct absence of a haircut and my comical lack of teeth give me the seldom seen in public service look of a hillbilly hockey goalie. Also, I'm not clear on what the Commerce Secretary does.

I do know it has something to do with money. Yes, I have had tax liens. Yes, I currently have four outstanding payday loans. Yes, I am behind in both my car payments and rent. Yes, I am totally unqualified for the position of Commerce Secretary. But - unlike the two previous nominees. - I am no quitter.

If nominated, if I will sit there while members of both political parties lambaste me over all the stuff even a quick Google search of my name would turn up - my repeated and pointless use of profanity, the hundreds of erotic and fetish photos I've taken, and my "comedy" videos suggesting that Hillary Clinton would have punched a baby in the face to win the Presidential nomination. I would proudly fail a drug test and if any Congresspeople or Senators talked shit to me, I'd have to put the smack down because I'm not playing like that, for real.

These hearings won't be fun for me or Congress but they will make awesome television. And I am pretty sure all I have to do is lean over into the microphone ominously and occasionally sweat.

And I can do that.
Read more: Judd Gregg, Commerce Secretary, Bill Richardson, Obama's Cabinet, Comedy News

Kari Henley: Citizen Confidence -- are Americans Having "Honeymoon Blues?"

2009-02-05T09:58:59Z
In last week's post, I spoke a bit about the new umbrella called Positive Psychology and how it is drawing top level scientists and researchers to contribute a new frontier of how to focus on our wellness or happiness, instead of our illness -- (see post here).

One idea I'd like to explore further is how to track America's 'Well-Being' at any given time. We have methods to track how much we spend and how many jobs we have lost, but how does it affect us all emotionally? What is the status of our "Citizen Confidence?"

I admire the forward thinking of the Huff Po with the dedication of the Living section to the Inner Life, the Giving Life and the Balanced Life. How is our Inner Life, our enthusiasm and confidence affected with the frustrating and disheartening "Business as usual" on Capitol Hill?

More American's than ever are daily tuning into politics, after such a historic election turn out. We were inspired like never before. Yet, this string of stumbles in confirming Obama's cabinet with tax evasion issues, the impeachment of the Illinois Governor and a zero republican vote of support for the bailout bill is absolutely having an impact on our Well Being, thank you very much. This is not part of our happy ending story.

The presidential inauguration reminded me of a really fine wedding. The American people and the Obama family have had a love affair for a year during the campaign, got engaged with a big diamond and celebration at the election, and finally walked down the aisle in the biggest wedding our nation has ever seen. Everyone came to the celebration. I am talking all the relatives in this big blended family were there, and it was a blast. Moving into the White House has never been so exciting.

We all ran out under a flurry of white rice and dashed off in a shiny new car to celebrate our honeymoon together. As citizens, we're committed to get active in this marriage and do our part to wash a few toilets, clean a few dishes and remember to put the top back on the toothpaste, as all newly weds do. We're ready to confront the crumbling economy, tackle health care, go green and rebuild our standing around the globe.

I also imagine the selection of the new Cabinet members to be something like inheriting "in-laws" for the next few years, to share our dining room table. Naturally we are all on our best behavior and ready to welcome in the crowd. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton managed to get in without too much ado, and she lit the place on fire with her strong team building skills and has the State Dept. jumping for joy. She took the first seat and we were ready for more.

Now, we had a seat ready for Bill Richardson. Ooops. Nope. Can't put him in for Commerce Secretary. Too bad, he was perfect. How about this seat here for our Treasury Secretary? Well, Senator Geithner almost lost his seat with that "little tax problem". I guess we can forgive him, because we really do need him with the economy in shambles and all.

How about that seat for Health and Human Services Secretary? Uh oh. Senator Daschle had to leave the table entirely yesterday with his tax embarassment. Not that health care matters much I suppose. And also yesterday, another fine potential "in-law", Nancy Killefer, had to withdraw her candidacy to be the first chief performance officer, due to botched payroll taxes on her household help. That's three who had to leave the table and three that have had major tax issues. Some performance.

Please, can't the honeymoon last a little longer? I'm not ready for it to end. It took a lot after Bush for us to get our hopes up and get hitched in the first place. I am not sure this newlywed bliss is ready for the partisan beating, delays and the frustrations. We had our swoon, and now are we crashing?

The high after the inauguration to the recent string of either blatant dishonesty, or over scrutinized confirmations, disheartens us at a deep inner level that affects our confidence, our willingness to stay involved, and quite frankly leaves our collective hope on fragile ground. How does our emotional response stay buoyed? Clearly no one can get through a Senate approval unscathed. What average American could? But we want a team. Now. We want our dining room table filled with people we can believe in -- just like that guy we put at the head of the table.

What is the modern lifespan of societal hope? Jobs are tanking and the fear in our bellies is gnawing deeper and deeper every day. How long will American's continue to believe that "Yes we can" if at every turn Washington wags it's finger and says, "Oh, no you can't?" How does this dysfunctional family environment affect about ability to stay motivated and move forward?

Maybe the only way for our Citizen Confidence and societal well-being to remain intact is to set up another table. Keep the fancy dining room for traditional formal meals like Thanksgiving with all the hoopla to get there; but maybe we need a kitchen table nook with trusted uncles like Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google and our buddy Warren Buffet to get down with a beer and a napkin style plan to get things done.

After all, everyone knows all the action in any house happens in the kitchen.

How is your Inner Life and Citizen Confidence doing right now? Are you in honeymoon bliss or blues? What do you think of our dining table of Cabinet members? How can we keep our active participation alive in the face of current pitfalls? I'd love to hear your comments.
Read more: Well-Being, Happiness, Hope, Obama Inauguration, President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Senate Confirmation, Senator Daschle, Senator Geithner, Bill Richardson, Nancy Killefer, Giving Life, Balanced Life, The Balanced Life, Inner Life, The Inner Life, Obama's Cabinet, The Giving Life, Featured Contributor, Politics News

Former Richardson Aide Named In Investment Lawsuit

2009-02-03T15:46:26Z
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A former state investment officer claims Gov. Bill Richardson's former chief of staff pressured board members to support $90 million in failed investments because of political considerations.

Frank Foy on Tuesday identified David Contarino as the previously undisclosed "John Doe #2" in his lawsuit.
Read more: Bill Richardson, Bill Richardson Obama, Bill Richardson Commerce, New Mexico Governor, Home News

Martha Burk: Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Not Enough

2009-01-28T18:44:21Z
President Obama is set to sign his first piece of legislation this week - the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. You may remember Ledbetter's case. She worked for Goodyear tire and rubber for most of her career, and found out after many years that she had been paid less than the men doing the same job all along. To add insult to injury, she had trained a couple of these guys.

The George W. Bush/ Roberts/Alito Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that though Ledbetter had indeed experienced discrimination, she was not entitled to damages because she hadn't filed her lawsuit within 180 days of that first short paycheck - never mind that she didn't discover the discrimination for more than a decade. The ruling overturned 40+ years of precedent. Up until Ledbetter v. Goodyear, courts had always ruled that a victim of wage discrimination had 180 days from the day she found out about it to file suit, and that each new short paycheck started the countdown clock over again. In passing the new bill, Congress and President Obama have restored the law to the way it has been interpreted for the last four decades.

But if you think that's the answer to women's pay inequity prayers, you're dead wrong. Just getting us back to even is not nearly enough to overcome that stubborn wage gap. Women still make only 77 cents to the dollar a man makes for full time year round work. We need more - much more. The main reason Lilly Ledbetter got shafted was that she didn't know her situation compared to the men. Employers are under no obligation to report pay statistics, and in most companies you can get fired for talking pay with co-workers. Though federal legislation to fix these two problems is in the pipeline, it's been in the pipeline for over a decade, and the light at the end is nowhere in sight.

The governor of one state - New Mexico - is not waiting. Bill Richardson (Obama's choice for commerce secretary who voluntarily dropped out of consideration) has just signed an executive order in his state that is ground breaking. Not only will the state as an employer have to study and report it's own pay practices when it comes to gender and race, so will private sector companies that want state contracts. Richardson has declared overcoming pay inequity and job segregation a priority, and established a high-powered task force to implement the needed changes.

Employers are likely to wail and gnash their teeth. Won't this cost money? Well maybe, but probably not that much. They already know who works for them, the gender and race of their employees, and how much they're paid by job category. So gathering the data ought to be relatively simple. Besides, all employers won't have to do it - just those that want state contracts, paid with dollars from taxpayers. In this day of bailouts and boondoggles at taxpayer expense, citizens footing the bills have a right to expect that any company getting government business pays its workers fairly. And there will be technical assistance and reasonable exceptions for small business.

By doing internal pay equity analyses, companies that have a problem and don't know it will be able to find out and fix it before they get hauled into court for discrimination. And if they're not doing anything wrong, they ought to be proud of it and willing to tell the world. Sure would cut down on all those "frivolous lawsuits" if employees could see the statistics up front and know they weren't being shorted in the pay envelope.

Congress did the right thing by bringing us back to a 40 year old standard when it fixed Ledbetter. But the State of New Mexico is way ahead of the curve, looking forward, not backward. Women should challenge the other 49 governors to follow suit, particularly one self-described "feminist" who can see Russia from her house.

Read more: New Mexico, Lilly Ledbetter, Wages, Sexism, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Ledbetter v Goodyear, Goodyear, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Politics News

John Thompson, Commerce Secretary? Symantec CEO Top Contender

2009-01-27T13:47:00Z
It has emerged that John Thompson, former CEO of the software company Symantec Corp., is the likely choice for Obama's Commerce Secretary, filling the void left by New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson earlier this month. According to the LA Times:

John W. Thompson, the outgoing chief executive of network security firm Symantec Corp., has emerged as a leading contender to be Commerce secretary, a move that would give the high-tech industry a major voice in the Obama administration.

Over the last decade, Thompson led the Cupertino, Calif.-based company from a small software maker to the top provider of antivirus and security programs, known for its Norton brand of products. An African American, Thompson also has been active in trying to bring more people of color into the high-tech industry.

The choice is not final because Thompson is still in the vetting phase of the selection process. According to a Democratic source interviewed by Reuters, "He (Thompson) is the leading candidate...he is still being vetted."

Thompson would bring valuable experience to the Commerce department and thus is already drawing hopeful praise from many in Washington, including commerce committee member Barbara Boxer. According to the Symantec website, Thompson has dealt with federal government affairs before, during the Bush administration:

In September 2002, President George W. Bush appointed Thompson to the National Infrastructure Advisory Committee (NIAC), to make recommendations regarding the security of the critical infrastructure of the United States.

If chosen and confirmed, Thompson will play an integral role in infrastructure side of the economic stimulus process--presumably more so than past Commerce secretaries, given the circumstances.

The LA Times also notes that Thompson and his wife, Sandra, have been very munificent and loyal Democratic contributors in years past, including a $50,000 donation to Obama's inaugural committee.
Read more: John Thompson Commerce Secretary, Commerce Secretary, John Thompson, Obama's Commerce Secretary, First 100 Days, Obama First 100 Days, 100 Days, Symantec, Bill Richardson, Business News

Isaac Skelton and Meghan Ralston: One Year Later: Heath Ledger's Tragic Overdose Death Reminds Us More Must Be Done

2009-01-22T19:03:02Z
Health Ledger was nominated for a posthumous Oscar award today for his haunting role as the Joker in the latest Batman film, The Dark Knight. The announcement happens to coincide with the anniversary of Heath Ledger's tragic overdose death last year in New York.

Since the late 1980s, it's become traditional to see Oscar presenters on TV prominently displaying red AIDS ribbons drawing attention to an epidemic that claimed nearly 15,000 lives in 2006. This year, the anniversary of Heath Ledger's death should call attention to another though largely unrecognized national crisis -- preventable deaths from drug overdose.

Accidental drug overdoses cause the death of more than 22,000 Americans every year. According to the Centers for Disease Control, drug overdose now ranks as a leading cause of preventable death, second only to motor-vehicle accidents. Accidental overdoses killed more Americans last year than did firearms. Yet no federal agency is tasked with mitigating this national health crisis.

Perhaps that's due to the misconception by some that overdose fatalities are mainly the problem of drug addicts, unworthy of our concern or compassion. That's nonsense. All lives are worth saving; all families matter and none of them should ever have to experience the devastating tragedy of a fatal overdose. In fact, as in Ledger's case, anyone who takes opioid painkillers or anti-anxiety medications is at risk. Perhaps surprisingly, there is evidence to suggest that pharmaceutical drugs, often misused and diverted, are now three times more likely to have caused a fatal overdose than all illicit street drugs like heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine, combined.

Fortunately, some cities and states are taking the initiative to address these preventable deaths. Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, New York and other cities are starting to make available naloxone, a low-cost, easy-to-use medicine with no potential for abuse that immediately reverses the effects of an opioid overdose. Naloxone, distributed to at-risk populations through syringe-exchange programs and other means, has already saved thousands of lives and returned loved ones to their families and friends. Naloxone starts working immediately by temporarily restoring breathing for 30 to 75 minutes, allowing someone enough time to call 911 and save a life.

Overdoses usually happen in witness of others and, if someone calls 911 right away, most people can be saved. One barrier to making that call to 911, however, is the fear of criminal prosecution for drug law violations. The fear is real. Drug arrests can ruin lives in another way, with incarceration and lifetime of stigma and economic destitution. It should never be a crime to call 911 to save a life.

States and elected officials are saving lives by making it easier to call for help with "911 Good Samaritan" immunity legislation. New Mexico broke ground in 2007 when the state legislature passed and Gov. Bill Richardson signed the first such law in the country that provides limited immunity from arrest to victims and witnesses of overdose who summon emergency services. Now New York, Maryland, California and other states are considering similar legislation.

Clearly, our country needs more education and outreach when it comes to preventing overdoses and reducing overdose fatalities. A shift in law enforcement's approach to drug problems from incarceration to treatment would do much to get this national crisis out in the open and begin a dialog. Many hope the incoming administration will take a hard look at our nation's drug policies, support for which Mr. Obama voiced while on the campaign trail. Congress should work with the president-elect to pass comprehensive overdose prevention legislation this year. There is nothing we can do to bring back Heath Ledger but we can learn from the tragedy and enact compassionate and sensible legislation to save thousands of others like him.

Isaac Skelton is the former director of publications for the Drug Policy Alliance www.drugpolicy.org. Meghan Ralston is the Los Angeles harm reduction coordinator for the Drug Policy Alliance, which is releasing a new report next month, "Preventing Overdose, Saving Lives: Strategies for Combating a National Crisis."
Read more: Overdose Deaths, Boston, Heath Ledger Dies, Fatalities, Mental Health, Personal Health, 911, Heath LEdger Overdose, Drugs, Los Angeles, New York, Bill Richardson, Death, Heath Ledger Pills, Drug Use, Health Crisis, Heath Ledger Suicide, Health, Chicago, Prescription Drugs, Heath Ledger Died, Heath LEdger Dead, Drug Abuse, Philadelphia, Heath Ledger, Anxiety, Heath Ledger Death, Drug Overdose, Living News

Val Kilmer: I Might Run For New Mexico Governor

2009-01-20T14:15:59Z
Actor Val Kilmer is strongly considering a run for New Mexico governor in 2011 when Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson will be term-limited out of office.

He told The Hill at Monday's Huffington Post party at the Newseum that he has been approached to run for the highest office of the state where he owns a ranch and has family roots.
Read more: New Mexico Governor, Governor Val Kilmer, Val Kilmer, Ralph Nader, Bill Richardson, Politics News

Geoffrey Dunn: Better Angels: The Inauguration of Barack Obama

2009-01-14T21:57:24Z
I.
There was a moment in the third and final presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain when I had a powerful vision from my youth: Muhammad Ali, the great heavyweight boxer and even greater civil rights icon, standing triumphantly over one of his fallen foes. It didn't matter which one--Sonny Liston or Joe Frazier or George Chuvalo--but there was Ali, tall and strong, black and oh-so-beautiful, beads of sweat shimmering on his face, a force of hope and passion, his chest out, proud and invincible.

It's an indelible image. Two generations later, at Hofstra University, there was Obama pitted against the venerable McCain, in many ways Obama's perfectly crafted dramatic antithesis, who had promised to "whip" Obama's ass that evening. Talk is cheap, of course (and even cheaper in the ring), and McCain's political karma had finally caught up to him. Obama stood there tall and confident, and, yes, black and beautiful, parrying McCain's verbal assaults, floating like a butterfly, if not necessarily stinging like a bee (that is not Obama's way), looking every bit as proud and invincible as Ali, four decades earlier.

If Obama is post-racial and post-partisan, then he is also post-confrontational. His power rests not so much in his ability to dominate and tyrannize (he had no knockout punch in the debates), but in the clarity of his vision, the power of his integrity and his ability to persuade.

There he stood, before an international audience, triumphant and transformative, that magnificent, all-encompassing smile of his radiating hope and promise for people around the world. I was sure then that his victory in the November 4 election was secure and his presidency inevitable. "It's all over but the crying for John McCain," I wrote afterwards in a column for a New York newspaper. "The Presidency will never be his."

Overconfident? Perhaps. Prophetic? I held my breath for the remaining weeks of the campaign. But the image of a triumphant Ali morphed into a triumphant Obama remained firmly sequestered in my mind.

II.
Barack Obama. Little more than four years ago, few of us had ever heard the name. It seemed to sound far too much like Osama to ever ring presidential. In this country. In the aftermath of 9/11. In the era of Bush & Cheney.

But shortly after the 2004 Democratic Convention, my good friend and longtime film-making partner, Mark Schwartz (from Chicago, of course), sent me an internet link to Obama's rousing keynote address at the convention, the speech that would elevate Obama to national prominence, that would make him a legitimate contender.

I remember being struck early on in the speech by Obama's plea for bipartisanship, by how positive and articulate he was, by the way he moved his audience. It was a startling piece of oratory, the most remarkable I had heard in decades. If it didn't quite carry the depth and gravitas of a Martin Luther King or John F. Kennedy, it had an eloquence, a rhetorical beauty to it, that transcended the banality of traditional electoral politics.

Little did we know then that it was Barack Obama's national audition, and he passed it as few political figures of this, or any other, generation ever would. He unveiled his unique journey that night in Boston--and wove it delicately into the fabric of the American Dream in a manner that was both moving and compelling. Barack Obama was the real deal.

"Tonight is a particular honor for me because, let's face it, my presence on this stage is pretty unlikely," he began, his trademark self-effacing humor and understatement already firmly cast. "My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya. He grew up herding goats, went to school in a tin-roof shack."

In what became the buzz phrase of the 2008 election cycle, political operatives from both major parties were asserting that it's no longer policy positions on issues that elect presidents, it's the way in which the electorate relates to their "personal narrative" that ultimately decides national elections. It's a decidedly jaundiced, if not outright cynical, view of the American political process, one in which a momentary faux pas or a resurfaced skeleton can destroy one's public image instantaneously.

In purely Jungian terms, Obama had forged his personal story into a powerful American archetype during his keynote address, and in so doing, set the foundation for his compelling storyline in the next presidential race.

As I re-watched the speech again last week on YouTube, I was brought to tears by an overwhelming sense of nostalgia as a younger, leaner, and, one can only imagine, far more naïve young man walked comfortably onto the stage in Boston, his smile radiant, while the Impressions' "Keep on Pushing" (written by the incomparable Curtis Mayfield) provided the soundtrack to his entrance.

Obama pulled off a fascinating juggling act in that speech. He at once affirmed the founding principles and values of this country, while also affirming its shortcomings.
Obama was about unity, not division. "It is that fundamental belief--I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper--that makes this country work."

Obama was building towards an oratorical apocalypse. "It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family: 'E pluribus unum,' out of many, one.'"

Cheers.

"Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America.... There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America.... We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."

The delegates rose to their feet. Obama drove it on home to a pounding crescendo: "In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism, or do we participate in a politics of hope?... the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too."

Obama brought down the house. He had solidified his own brand that evening and established his personal narrative. It was not traditional Democratic Party rhetoric. It was an affirmation of country that transcended partisan divisions: That we, as a people, are a whole greater than the sum of our parts.

The politics of hope, indeed.

III.
I was moved enough by Obama's speech to pick up a copy of his provocative biographical ruminations, Dreams from My Father. I was certain that the keynote address in Boston would not be the last we were to hear from him, that he would be a rising star in national politics. Little did I know how fast and how far.

But it wasn't until three years later, in the fall of 2007, that I really came to believe in his candidacy, that I wanted to walk with him, to borrow a phrase from Alice Walker, on his "journey of new possibility."

My 92-year-old mother--the daughter of Italian immigrants and who, as a child, lived among those who had been born into slavery--had suffered the first health challenge of her life and I was staying with her at nights, nursing her back to health. She likes to go to sleep watching the late-night talk shows, and one evening, as I was putting her to bed, out walks Barack Obama on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

Obama was already a candidate for the Presidency by then (an "underdog" in his own words), had been working the ground in Iowa, but it was before the campaign had really taken off. And I watched my mother watch Obama.

It was a fascinating moment. My mother paid close attention, laughed at Obama's jokes about Dick Cheney (he and Cheney are distant cousins, "not kissin' cousins"), but she was impressed by the way he reached out to everyone. "I like that guy," she said. "What's his name?" It took her a while to get it, but she did.

I knew then that he had a shot.

Obama laid out some interesting groundwork that night. Many of the themes that we would hear over and over in his campaign were tested out that evening. At the time, Leno noted, most pundits were declaring Hillary Clinton a "shoe-in" for the Democratic nomination. "Hillary," Obama responded with perfect comedic timing, "is not the first politician in Washington to declare 'mission accomplished' a little too soon." He had deftly managed to link Hillary to George Bush. The line elicited a rousing ovation. But the theme he kept pounding that night was bipartisanship: "I want to be the president of all the people of the United States, not just the Democrats." More applause.

My mom has voted mostly Republican all the way back to Wendell Willkie (she claims to have voted for FDR in '36), but there was something about Obama that moved her, that resonated with her deeply, that let her know she could trust her grandchildren to his leadership. And half way through her 93rd year, 72 long years after she had cast her first vote in a presidential election, she voted for Obama. And she has every intention of watching him inaugurated next week.

IV.
During the dog days of the presidential campaign this past July, shortly after Clinton had finally conceded the nomination to him, the New Yorker magazine ran a largely overlooked profile of Obama by Ryan Lizza focusing on his career as a young politician in Chicago. (It was largely overlooked because it also carried the controversial cartoon cover of Obama and his wife Michelle looking every bit like insurgent Muslim radicals).

I re-read the piece again in early December, as Obama was into the process of naming his cabinet, and immediately after he named Rick Warren, the right-wing evangelical founder of Saddleback Church in Orange County, to deliver the invocation at his inauguration as the 44th President of these United States.

Obama has written extensively about his early days as a community organizer in Chicago in Dreams from My Father, and, of course, about his brief tenure in the U.S. Senate in his other best-seller, The Audacity of Hope. But he has been mostly silent about his early days in electoral politics.

The article noted, quite accurately I would argue, that Obama's swift rise in Chicago (and Illinois) politics, came with a bit of a price tag attached. That Obama was relentlessly ambitious goes without saying. (You don't become President of the United States without a great deal of drive and a healthy ego.) That he was also opportunistic and willing to step over people who had once been loyal to him was a little harder for me to discover, given the way I had chosen to construct him as a political candidate during the nearly two years of his presidential campaign.

The article also addressed Obama's very direct ties to current Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, presently under federal investigation on corruption charges, and to a host of other shady Chicago politicians. No one gets through the muck of Chicago politics without getting a little soiled. It's the nature of that particular beast.

But after re-reading the article, it put Obama's choice of Warren--and some of his other cabinet choices--into clearer focus for me. Obama is also an ideological "liberal," though not in the typical sense of the word as it is used in American politics, but his realpolitik has always been far more centrist than one would imagine from his rhetoric and from the political pulse of his campaign.

I've had my say about the Warren selection and Obama's willingness to throw those of us who fought Warren on Prop. 8 in November under the bus with this selection. And I have made my peace with it. Obama's religious affiliations (including Reverend Wright) have always been politically calculated. Warren reached out to Obama early in his campaign, invited him to Saddleback, and Obama is simply repaying a political debt. It sends an important signal about the way that Obama intends to govern that we dismiss at our own peril.

Moreover, much has been made of Obama's reading of Doris Kearns Goodwin's book about Abraham Lincoln fashioning "a team of rivals" in his cabinet. Far to the contrary, he has fashioned a team of centrists, one that includes George Bush's Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, and a host of other pro-war hawks (including Hillary Clinton) and Wall Street money managers. There is a significant chasm between the very real movement that put Obama in the White House and the government he has assembled. And that chasm cannot be spanned by hyperbole and rhetoric.

In addition to Obama's close proximity to the Blagojevich scandal, Obama's recent road to the White House has gotten more than a bit bumpy around the likes of Bill Richardson and others. He has made mistakes in recent weeks and he will certainly make more.

As the Obama entourage moves from election to inauguration--as our nation moves beyond the national nightmare that was Bush & Cheney--we all need to roll up our sleeves and participate in facilitating the change we can all believe in. One man or woman--or a small group of them congregated in Washington, D.C.--do not a meaningful revolution make.

Remember Obama's slogan: Yes, we can. Note the plural. Democracy is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. A great deal of our nation's destiny is resting now on one young man's shoulders. We all need to help him carry that weight. Those who argue that this is not the time for dissent do both Obama and this country a disservice. Obama comes to us not with a halo on his head, but with soil on his hands. Let us never confuse the two. Realpolitik is a contact sport; it's not a dance. And while his governance may be centrist, we must insist that he never abandon the progressive ideals that inspired so many of us to support him. That is our challenge; not his. As Alice Walker wisely observed in a recent letter to Brother Obama, "We are the ones we have been waiting for."

V.
It is impossible to deny the historic significance of the inauguration taking place this Tuesday in our nation's capitol. It ranks with the inaugural transformations of Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Indeed, I would argue, given the crises that presently face this nation both at home and abroad, that only Lincoln's came at a moment of such resounding import in American history.

Lincoln's inauguration in 1861, on the eve of the U.S. Civil War, was a mostly somber affair. Lincoln knew what he was up against. He made no pretense to the contrary. (That he staunchly defended slavery in his first inaugural address should provide concern and caution to Obama as he crafts his own address for Tuesday.)

But in the concluding passages to his remarks on that cold and grey day in Washington, Lincoln called upon the American people to dig deep into their souls and find the "better angels of our nature." It was a powerful calling.

Lincoln, of course, was not able to hold the nation together. It took four long and violent years of bitter bloodshed to fashion the union whole again.

Make no mistake about it. Obama's challenges are far graver than Lincoln's. Poverty and violence threaten us around the world and here at home. To borrow an oft-quoted phrase from Yeats, "The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned." Our country has been devastated by the last eight years of George W. Bush--our economy, our health care system, our national security, our standing in the world--and Obama was elected not because he is a nuts-and-bolts administrator, but because he projected a new and emboldened vision of national leadership.

As Obama takes his oath of office on Tuesday, may he and this country be guided by those "better angels" upon whom Lincoln called. If ever there were a president who was capable of being so blessed, it is he.

In these dark and troubled times, Barack Obama has forged a new politics of hope on the American landscape. May that hope be realized and may his inspiration be truly transformative. And may the present American nightmare be restored, once again, into a vital and viable American Dream.

Read more: Robert Gates, Rick Warren, Obama Inauguration Day, Obama Inauguration, Alice Walker, Barack Obama Inauguration, Barack Obama Huffington Post, Huffpost Inauguration, Bill Richardson, Barack Obama, Politics News

Midwin Charles: Governors Gone Wild!

2009-01-12T18:02:57Z
Governors have gone wild!

Politics and scandal go together like champagne and caviar. From Richard Nixon's Watergate to Ronald Reagan's arms-for-hostages to Bill Clinton's perjury on his adultery, the presidency has traditionally been a generous supplier of sex scandals and corruption.

But in the last year or two, governors have been claiming their fair share of the action.

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's senate seat appointment, made after his arrest for attempting to sell said seat to the highest bidder, marks the latest in a string of public relations fiascoes embroiling American governors.

Post-arrest, Blagojevich defied calls from his peers to step down for the good of his party and state and instead appointed Roland Burris to the vacant senate seat left by President-elect Barack Obama.

The appointment is legal. Although the Illinois State House of Representatives voted to impeach Blagojevich, to date he is still the governor of Illinois and continues to pardon criminals, sign bills into law, and conduct the day-to-day duties of the governor of Illinois. But Blagojevich's actions make clear that if he's going down, he's taking some of the Democratic party with him.

The appointment begs for a procedural fight, one that would conveniently distract from Blagojevich's legal troubles. Simultaneously, his choice of a reputable African-American politician adds a patina of nobility, however cynical, to the appointment and inoculates it against a fight by Democrats needing the reflected popularity of the nation's first African-American president-elect to solve the nation's fiscal crisis.

Better yet, Burris is a man with a distinguished career, but one who Illinoisans have rejected for public office the last three times he ran. That history, plus the tarnish of being appointed by a governor arrested for corruption, will be a generous gift to any Republican challenger in 2010 -- and Blagojevich knows it. (Initially rebuffing Burris's attempts to join the Senate, the Democrats, dreading an ill-timed procedural showdown and buffeted by fingers-crossed calls of racism by some Republicans, are heading toward admitting Burris to the Senate anyway.)

For the moment, the ever-metastasizing Blagojevich story has overshadowed New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson's. Conducting himself as the anti-Blagojevich, Richardson earlier this month withdrew as Obama's choice for Commerce Secretary as a result of a federal investigation into "pay to play" accusations involving a state contract given to a company run by a donor to his political action committees.

Then there are the antics of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, formerly known as John McCain's choice for Republican vice presidential nominee. The cardinal rule of a VP nominee is: agree with the candidate at the top of the ticket, at least until the election is won. But Palin spent the last month of the campaign disagreeing with McCain's position on a constitutional amendment on marriage, whether to continue competing for Michigan voters, removing North Korea from the list of terrorist nations, and more. She turned herself into a darling of the right wing of the party at McCain's expense . . . during a presidential campaign.

And none of us forgets former governor of New Jersey Jim McGreevey and former governor of New York Eliot Spitzer -- the operative word here being former. Both resigned from office amidst juicy accusations of abuses of power and/or blatant violations of the law.

In August 2004, McGreevey was forced to resign after being threatened with a sexual harassment lawsuit by the man with whom he was having an extramarital affair and whom he had appointed homeland security advisor -- a man who could not gain a security clearance from the U.S. government because he was not a U.S. citizen, but an Israeli. In March of 2008, Spitzer was caught paying for the services of a high-priced call girl.

Of course, governors are not the only ones caught engaging in corruption or sex scandals. Idaho Senator Larry Craig quietly served out the remaining 17 months of his term after making the phrase "wide-stance" famous. Despite being freshly convicted of seven felonies, former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens nearly won re-election in October.

Those who pursue governor and senator seats tend to be ambitious and ego-driven, not least of all because both seats are shortcuts to the White House. My bet is that governors will continue to go wild in 2009. Stay tuned!
Read more: Jim McGreevey, Senator Larry Craig, Bill Clinton, John McCain 2008, Ted Stevens Corruption, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Rod Blagojevich, Roland Burris, Eliot Spitzer, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Sarah Palin, Politics News