Today when I was at my part time job, a fellow co-worker pointed out to me in the Washington Post that it indicated President Bill Clinton was doing a speech in a nearby retirement community in Silver Spring, Maryland called Leisure World. The information, presented in a fashion that suggested it was open to the public, seemed like good enough reason to try to make it out to see one of our former Presidents do a speech.

However upon calling Leisure World, it turns out the speech is only for residents or resident invite only. The explanation was that it was a “big mix up.” This is a very interesting development. It looks like not only race has been a factor in this campaign but also age. The young voters have flocked to Senator Barack Obama in a rock star type fashion. Obama is doing a speech at the University of Maryland tomorrow afternoon and it is expected to be so widely attended that it is in the Comcast Center, where the Terrapin basketball team plays its games.

It seems that Clinton has almost surrendered the youth vote. In defense, Chelsea Clinton did do a Q&A session at the student union at Maryland that I was not able to attend. However, according to a Washington Post blog report, only about 100 people attended. With Democrats turning out in record numbers for primaries and caucuses, I imagine the youth are playing a big role especially in Obama’s three big wins yesterday. Obama is inspiring the new generation’s voters…and with both Bill and Hillary not even attempting to court voters at Maryland’s biggest university, it strengthens the argument that the Clinton name represents the Democratic party of the past and the Obama name represents the Democratic party of the future.

After McCain cleaned house on Super Tuesday and Mitt Romney’s surprise farewell at the CPAC speech on Thursday, it seems that there is little room for anyone to make a jump in the GOP primary race. However, Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas vows to continue.

I was able to see the governor speak at the University of Maryland, where I am currently attending, today. He spoke mostly of economic issues including taxes where at one point he actually shredded a 1040 tax form.

In an area that is, to say the least, a bit left of center politically, it is not surprising that he did not spend much time focusing on social issues but rather fiscal issues, education, and coming from little to propel himself to the place where he is now.

While the chances are looking dim for Governor Huckabee, let us not forget that no one thought he would win Iowa, no one thought McCain would even make it past summer, etc.

But, he was all but written off by one important conservative voice…Karl Rove. At his new gig, FOX NEWS, Karl Rove explains Huckabee’s dim chances with his devolutionary white board.

Two steps Left is now back after somewhat of a lengthy hiatus. We expect this blog to be fully operational for the remaining length of the 2008 Presidential Campaign season.

And as far as I know, these pictures are real. So, I guess this is what they have to do to appeal to their “conservative” base. It is so funny how a candidate becomes most indecent when he or she is trying to appeal to a conservative audience. Whether it be singing about bombing Iran or holding up prejudiced signs comparing other candidates to terrorists, that seems to be the procedure.

Story
Congratulations Democratic Senate! You finally did something good!

UNBELIEVABLE! I was out of the loop on this one and I just started hearing about it from watching live C-SPAN coverage of it today. They just turned it over to House coverage but before they did James Connaughton, Philip Cooney’s former boss, was testifying before the House Oversight and Government Reform committee. I believe Philip Cooney did earlier among others. The hearings grew a bit heated at times.

Basically, Philip Cooney was a former oil lobbyist who was the Chief of Staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. He resigned his post in June of 2005 and was hired by ExxonMobil THREE DAYS LATER!

This guy had no scientific background, but rather a degree in economics. Anyway, there’s evidence that he politically doctored up global climate reports to undermine the evidence of climate change.

Read everything you can about this guy, I know I am out of the loop to just be finding about this now, but I am sure I am not the only one because I did a Yahoo! news search on Philip Cooney and obits from obscure cities came up rather than any news on this.

More on Philip Cooney:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Cooney
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html?ex=1275883200&en=22149dd80c073dd8&ei=5089
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/20/1328225
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1177
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/18/23467/2233

Bill Clinton. Not a figure that is too respected on the religious right. Many times when people who follow the politics of the religious right cite reasons for disliking Bill Clinton it is usually a pretty easy reason: he had extramarital affairs when he was a married man. But what about Newt Gingrich? When Newt was trying to bring down Clinton he was doing the same thing. But, who gets forgiveness? Newt Gingrich.

That’s right, because Newt Gingrich will be addressing graduates at Falwell’s Liberty University this year. I don’t know, but the Bible I read growing up did not say only forgive those who share your politics.  Obviously, Falwell has not forgiven and forgotten Clinton’s affair if one reads statements that were made just late last year comparing Clinton’s affair to the Mark Foley scandal, where by the way in case you have forgotten, Rep. Foley was molesting children not a consenting adult.

When our forefathers wanted to keep church separate from state, and equally as important state out of church, it was not something to be taken lightly. Unfortunately, certain churches have become political machines supporting an agenda of people on the far political right and making the God and the Jesus Christ I was taught about growing up into a tool to make a ton of money and influence political affairs. What a shame.

If there was one person in this great country of ours who should not have a right to free speech because of not knowing how to use such a great privilege, it would probably have to be Ann Coulter. Much like a junior high bully, she insulted a heterosexual married man by indirectly referring to him as a “faggot”. John Edwards, who has dedicated his time to helping the less fortunate and poverty stricken people in our nation, was simply insulted by her for no good reason. Ann Coulter spends her time on the things she is passionate about. Usually, it consists of insulting widows who lost their husbands in terrorist attacks or insulting politicians who actually try to make positive change.

I have not heard anyone actually try to insult someone publicly with something as unintelligent as the word “faggot” since probably late middle school or early high school. Would not one think that a political action conference would be a place to have intelligent discussion about issues affecting Americans? Instead, Ann Coulter uses it as a bully pulpit for name calling. What good has Ann Coulter done for her conservative cause? Nothing.

She is so unprofessional and unintelligent in her arguments that she has no respect from anyone who actually has political clout. All three Republican presidential front runners for 2008 denounced her comments basically saying that they were childish and way too unsophisticated for modern day political discussion.

Ann Coulter thinks way too highly of herself to care what anyone thinks. I doubt she even cares that the most prominent people in her political party denounced her, let alone a leftist blogger from rural Pennsylvania. However, my final point is that people like her have no place in modern society. People who publicly use the immature, uneducated, unprofessional and downright childish rhetoric that she uses to characterize people on the other side of the isle deserve no place in the politics of this great country, even if it is just a PAC meeting.

As a fairly progressive Democrat who has stood against the Iraq War since its beginning, I have to say I am not happy with what my political party is doing in the House. I suppose it is nice to have a debate over the Iraq War but the non binding resolution is powerless. It will do nothing to stop the war. People will continue to die today as the Democrats pretend they are handling the situation like we elected them to do.

Although I understand our majority is probably not strong enough to end the war via cutting off funding, I feel there has to be a more productive way for Democrats to go about doing this.

The more I hear about the war, the more unsure I am. Comprehensive benchmarks with consequences for the Iraqi government seems like a reasonable option. A beginning to a redeployment and talks with surrounding nations that we have accused and polarized seems like it could be a start.

Most of the things outlined in the Iraq Study Group report seem like they could be an answer. If the Democrats worked to try to implement all of the measures of the Iraq Study Group report, I would say it could be much more productive than simply saying we disagree and wash our hands of Bush’s policy but won’t try to actually implement an alternative strategy.

The Iraq Study Group report was worked out in good old fashioned bipartisanship. Even though I have not read the full report, from what I have heard of it, it seems like an effective solution by people from various backgrounds and political persuasions coming together to find an answer. Resolution or not, President Bush has already started this troop surge. While it is great to have a debate, the debate does nothing to improve the situation. The American people are strongly opposed to this surge and the Democrats are doing nothing to materialize a true stop to it. Is it political fear? Is it because it is a powerlessly small majority in the Senate? Who knows, but I think they could do better. The debate has to end tonight at midnight, and the congresspeople will go to their upscale apartments in Georgetown or McLean, but as they sleep tonight, the war continues in a far off land. And they are doing nothing to effectively stop it.

Today, comedian and Air America radio host Al Franken announced he would be running for the United States Senate in Minnesota on his website. Wide name recognition will be favorable for him early on, but whether or not he can be taken seriously as a candidate will be another question. However, a video posted on his website (which I posted the link below) seems to show a man sincere in representing the working people of Minnesota. You be the judge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh8LfGIM62M&eurl=

Well, we all heard the news about the tens of thousands of people protesting the Bush 21,000 man troop surge in Iraq. It was also a protest of the Iraq War as a whole. So, to get into context with the title of this post, why do I feel this is healthy for our image abroad?

Well, I think it is good for Bush to look like a man who has abandoned his people. He really has. The 2006 midterm elections seemed to be quite promising for us on the moderate left. We were ready to work with the other side of the isle and hoped they would finally be humbled enough to realize their supermajority was over. For a while, it seemed like the Republicans in congress were being reasonable and I still think a lot of them are. But, we can’t forget the White House.

President Bush has alienated not only his country but the whole world (the whole world a long time ago). He is a man at war alone with his neoconservative cronies in expensive SUV’s and heated offices while our troops are over there moderating a civil war between insurgents. President Bush speaks of the great sacrifice these men will make, but what sacrifice? A sacrifice for Bush and his neoconservative oil thirsty friends to maintain and enhance their wealthy status quo?

If we really wanted to take on this humantarian foreign policy of liberating people, then why didn’t we invade some country in Africa?

So, these are the same old talking points and I am restating again. But the larger point is these protests are healthy for America. People abroad do watch what happens in our country. They are seeing the people are not behind this dangerous and careless foreign policy. They are seeing that even Republicans in power are against what Bush is doing.

The way the White House and its advocates react toward people in Congress speaking their minds is the most condescending and ridiculous thing ever. If anyone in Congress speaks out against the war they say these people “undermine the War on Terror and embolden the enemy.” So, what are we doing? Establishing Democracy abroad to undermine our own? So, our own right to free speech is now patronized so that Bush and his buddies in the White House look good?

It reminds me of when I was a kid and we’d go out with our parents to some nice dinner or something and our parents would say “well act good” so our family could look perfect. It was such a humbling feeling that made you feel so childish and young. Basically, Bush’s White House tries to make its dissenters look childish and disruptive.

Well, it certainly is not free speech in our own country hurting us in the war, it is the irresponsibility of this administration hurting us. It is not our free speech and protesting hurting our image abroad. Instead, it is helping our people be distanced from the dangerous and irresponsible foreign policy decisions of the Bush administration that compromised and damaged our image abroad. If we as the people show we are united against these terrible decisions by the White House, it is our only hope of showing the rest of the world we are not out of touch. We know this is not the right direction for our country. We love our country and know it is not good for it. The White House and President Bush have turned against the will of the people expressed in the 2006 elections. So I feel we aren’t emboldening anyone by turning away from them. They emboldened the enemy initially by invading Iraq. So, the dissent of this war can’t embolden anyone more than they already have.

Rick Santorum voted against a Bush appointee on Wednesday. …WHAT?! His main reason for voting against Robert Gates was because of his support for talks with Iran. Santroum said the United States needs to confront Iran rather than, “engaging someone who is at war with us. I think he (Gates) is in error.”

I suppose it is Santorum’s parting shot leaving himself with his very conservative legacy. While Santorum was very entertaining as a senator from time to time, I think I can speak for this site as a whole in saying we are eager for Senator Elect Bob Casey, Jr. to replace him.

Just the other day in my United States History class, my fairly conservative professor was criticizing the mainstream media as too liberal and said about the mainstream media being based out of New York and Los Angeles. He said I don’t know about you guys, but I don’t think like people from those cities. Perhaps he is on to something. The mainstream media are the people trying to spoon feed us Hillary 2008. What true progressive could want this? Her main concerns are with a political legacy rather than progress. Why else would her views change so much so fast?

Barack Obama is much more dynamic and exciting. He is a fresh face that can beat Hillary. As I have stated so many times on this blog, I live in rural Pennsylvania where small town swing voters do not particularly like Hillary. The mainstream media sometimes acts as though Hillary already has the White House in 2008. No matter what Hillary does to make herself moderate, she cannot lose that reputation as a liberal New York carpetbagger who is the wife of an adulterer in rural areas. Don’t get me wrong, I like Hillary. She is a great Senator, but I just feel that she is playing politics way too much with her potential 2008 bid.

Barack Obama has only been in the Senate for two years. He does not have a lengthy voting record that can be attacked by a conservative opponent. Obama is just that kind of guy who you would feel bad for trying to attack. He just seems like an all around nice guy.

I mean, I just have so much support for this guy I don’t even know how to word it. Let me put it like this…last week I saw that new movie BOBBY. Obviously, the movie portrays Bobby Kennedy as this larger than life guy who was going to save the country. It makes you think, wow, why can’t we have someone like that today?

RIGHT AFTER the movie, both my buddy and I started talking about it and we realized we were both thinking the same thing. The only person who can be like that today is Barack Obama.

I am telling you, this is the guy we need in 2008. I really think he could put this country on the right direction. He would be the first African American president. America is ready for an African American president!
Even Neil Young thinks Obama can do it:

Someone walks among us
And I hope he hears the call
And maybe it’s a woman
Or a black man after all

Yeah maybe it’s Obama
But he thinks that he’s too young

Well, Neil, it does not seem like that anymore. Obama is talking about running! Now, let’s get behind him and send this country back in the right direction! Because no matter how many video game violence awareness ads she gets in with Joe Lieberman, Hillary can’t win back the heartland.

With the current state of Washington, the one lead by the Republicans that is leaving, one doesn’t have to look very far in the newspapers, maybe the B section, to see that other than the Iraq situation—which has no real good solution, and the Republican corruption, there has been little in new ideas. When congress comes back with democratic majorities, as long as Byrd doesn’t pass (he may outlive them all though!) the real focus may be on the 2008 election which is not far away in Washington’s mind, nor the lobbyists, big donors, and the media.

But this won’t change enough if Hillary Clinton wins. And yes, she may have a very good change of winning. How do I know? It really goes back to Ronald Reagan, and perhaps one of the most overlooked aspect of the Reagan revolution which the Democratic Leadership Council understood; that being how much the media and populism of both blue and red work on Americans, especially the swing voter. Simple premise: Star power works and Clinton has mastered it.

But what makes my day is the fact that Obama may run. Now, as of right now, I don’t see how he can’t run. He has gotten a lot of free-press and is frequently mentioned in the major newspapers and the 24-hour news systems. Furthermore, the reason why he excites me is that he is really a policy centric leader with a progressive reformer streak. But he doesn’t have the polarization because he is smooth.

In a month of surprises within the Bush White House, here comes a new one. John Bolton resigns kind of out of nowhere. I, myself, thought that Bolton would stick around and try to get an appointment through the Senate, but it is speculated that with a Democratic majority it would have been a big bickering session for him to try to get approved. Bush, who seems to absolutely adore Bolton, seems to have been taken by surprise.

Bush has said he accepts his resignation with deep regret. The appointment of Bolton was controversial from the beginning. Critics have said he is too contentious for diplomacy. The real question is, who is next? I am hoping it is an appointment with little controversy. As a Democrat, I feel our party needs to avoid contention and be the party that gets things done and gets passed partisan bickering. In order to have a strong fairing in 2008, it is what must be done.