compiled by Dee Finney

updated 11-5-04










Genetic Genealogy
Image: Rosemary Forbes
John Kerry’s family traced back to royalty
Kingly connections run thick through maternal blood line, sparking
political prediction from Burke’s Peerage
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's mother Rosemary Forbes Kerry, seen in this family photo from 1940, was a member of the affluent Forbes shipping family and a descendant of John Winthrop, who helped found Boston in 1630. She is the candidate's main link to royal personages of the past.
By Kate Kelland
Updated: 11:39 a.m. ET Aug. 16, 2004

LONDON - When it comes to American presidential elections, blue blood counts.

So say British researchers who predict Democratic challenger John Kerry will oust President  Bush on Nov. 2 simply because he boasts more royal connections than his Republican rival.

After months of research into Kerry’s ancestry, Burke’s Peerage, experts on British aristocracy, reported on Monday that the Vietnam War veteran is related to all the royal houses of Europe and can claim kinship with Russian czar Ivan the Terrible, a previous emperor of Byzantium and the shahs of Persia.

Burke’s director Harold Brooks-Baker said Kerry had his mother, Rosemary Forbes, to thank for most of his royal connections.

“Every maternal blood line of Kerry makes him more royal than any previous American president,” Brooks-Baker said. “Because of the fact that every presidential candidate with the most royal genes and chromosomes has always won the November presidential election, the coming election — based on 42 previous presidents — will go to John Kerry.”

Similar research carried out on Bush ahead of the 2000 presidential race showed that he beat Al Gore in the royal stakes, claiming kinship with Britain’s Queen Elizabeth as well as with Kings Henry III and Charles II of England.

In the company of kings
Kerry is a descendant of bygone kings of England, Henry III and Henry II, and is distantly related to Richard the Lionheart, who led the third Crusade in 1189, according to Burke’s.

He is also descended from Henry I, King of France, and his wife, Anne of Kiev, giving him kinship with the royal houses of Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the House of Rus.

Burke’s research showed Kerry also has historical political connections in the United States.

He is closely related to John Winthrop, the first Massachusetts governor — the state for which he is now a senator — and his maternal grandmother was the granddaughter of Robert Winthrop, who was speaker of the House of Representatives from 1847 to 1849.

Copyright 2004 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.



John Kerry Considers delaying accepting party's nomination

By NEDRA PICKLER and SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writers

BOSTON - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry is considering delaying accepting his party's nomination to gain time to raise and spend private contributions and lessen President Bush's multimillion-dollar financial advantage, campaign officials said Friday.

The proposal would let Kerry hold off on spending his $75 million general-election budget for an extra month. The Democratic Party would still stage its national convention in Boston at the end of July, five weeks before the Republican National Convention in New York.

Kerry's campaign and the Democratic National Committee are still considering the specifics of such a plan. Campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said the nomination officially takes place after the delegate roll-call vote, so Democrats could have to find a way to recreate that or change the party rules to delay the vote's impact for a month.

Kerry and President Bush are each expected to accept $75 million in full federal funding for their general election campaigns. Once each is nominated, he will be limited to spending the government money and can no longer raise or spend private contributions on the campaign.

The Kerry campaign "won't fight with one hand behind our back," Cutter said.

"Never in Democratic Party history has any nominee raised as much money as John Kerry," she said. "We're going to continue to ambitiously fund-raise and we believe our support will only grow."

Television networks were uncertain Friday how Kerry's plan would affect their convention coverage, still in the planning stages. Over the past few conventions, broadcast networks have reduced their live coverage to a few hours per week.

"It's one more thing that's not happening at a convention," said Mark Lukasiewicz, in charge of special events coverage for NBC News. "It's one more thing to factor in as we decide how much resources — financial and editorial — we have to give to convention coverage."

A decision by the Kerry campaign could be weeks away. Other options being considered include having the DNC or local and state Democratic parties raise more money to support Kerry's candidacy, Cutter said. Kerry would have no control over much of the money raised by the party. By law, the DNC can coordinate up to roughly $16 million to $18 million in spending with Kerry's campaign in the general election.

Kerry himself declined to comment. Asked Friday whether he would accept his party's nomination in July, he smiled and said, "I will accept the nomination."

Kerry and Bush skipped public financing for the primary-election season, letting them spend as much as they wish until their parties officially nominate them at conventions this summer.

Since becoming the party's presumptive nominee in early March, Kerry has broken Democratic fund-raising and spending records. He raised roughly $31 million last month alone, pushing his campaign total to a Democratic record $117 million.

Kerry started May with $28 million in the bank, far less than Bush's $72 million but still a Democratic record. Bush has raised more than $200 million so far.

The crucial question, should Kerry try to stop the clock from ticking on his $75 million general-election financing, is when Kerry is considered nominated in the eyes of the Federal Election Commission. Is it when delegates vote? Or when Kerry accepts their vote?

The FEC and courts have traditionally deferred to party rules to determine how a candidate is nominated, said Larry Noble, former FEC general counsel. The FEC provides the general-election financing after the candidate is nominated according to the party's rules.

It's possible the DNC could change its nominating procedures before the convention, such as deciding to have delegates vote later by mail or by proxy.

"I don't see anything in the general election campaign laws that would stop the party from changing the nomination dates," said Noble, now head of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

However, delaying the nomination could have implications for the roughly $14 million in government financing the DNC received to hold its nominating convention, he said.

The convention is defined as when the nomination takes place, Noble said. Having delegates vote in Boston, but Kerry put off his acceptance, might not pass muster, he said.

"They would have to come up with an argument that would basically look at the convention as continuing past the convention dates," Noble said. "Could they do it? It's possible. In the end it would be up to the FEC and possibly the courts, if it's challenged."

The Kerry campaign and DNC would be wise to ask the FEC's advice before trying to change the nomination process, said FEC spokesman Bob Biersack, adding that the commission has not faced such a question before.

Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt said throwing a DNC convention with government money only to officially nominate Kerry later could amount to a "bait-and-switch tactic on the American taxpayer."

"Maybe they've found a way to manipulate the federal law in such a way as to avoid that, but fundamentally this is about John Kerry thinking the rules that apply to everyone else don't apply to him," Holt said.

Asked about the possibility of Democrats losing the $14 million in convention funding, spokeswoman Cutter said there were pros and cons to all the possibilities.

If Kerry is nominated in late July as the party planned, he will have to make his $75 million check last a month longer than Bush will. Because the Republican convention is timed later than the Democratic gathering, Bush would have about a month more to raise money from private contributors than Kerry.

When the Democratic Party scheduled its convention, it didn't know it would have a nominee who opted out of public financing for the primaries and the $45 million spending limit the program imposes through the spring and summer.

At the time, the party anticipated it would face the same situation it has in previous elections: a nominee who emerged from the primaries hovering at the spending limit and had to limp through several months awaiting the convention and the campaign-sustaining government financing.

Interest groups running ads in the presidential race are keeping a close eye on Kerry's decision. The nation's campaign finance law bans them from using corporate or union money on ads mentioning Kerry a month before he is officially nominated, with the same rules applying to ads mentioning Bush in advance of his party convention.

If Kerry delays his nomination, that could give outside groups more times to run ads for and against him using the so-called soft money, said David Keating, executive director of the anti-tax group Club for Growth, which opposes many of Kerry's policies and supports many of Bush's.


Associated Press Writers Liz Sidoti, Ron Fournier and David Bauder contributed to this report.


Kerry has delegates for nomination

WASHINGTON (AP) — John Kerry locked up the Democratic presidential nomination Saturday, reaching the magic number of delegates needed to become President Bush's chief rival in the general election, according to an Associate.

The four-term Massachusetts senator reached the 2,162 delegate mark Saturday afternoon, just as Democrats in Kansas headed to party caucuses

Cumulative delegate totals -  Democratic

 Delegates needed: 2162    Total delegates: 4322 Updated: 3:17:29 PM 
 Candidate Delegates Needed % Total 
 John Forbes Kerry 2,194 -32 51% 
 Edwards 528 1,634 12% 
 Dean 158 2,004 4% 
 Clark 73 2,089 2% 
 Alfred Sharpton 26 2,136 1% 
 Dennis J. Kucinich 22 2,140 1% 
 Lieberman 2 2,160 0% 
 Gephardt 2 2,160 0% 
 Other 1 2,161 0% 
 Uncommitted 0 2,162 0% 


Results from  and
 Kansas - MARCH 13, 2003
Modified closed caucus
The state legislature passed a bill eliminating the 2004 presidential primaries, saving Kansas an estimated $1.75 million. Under the tentative state Democratic plan, registered voters can cast a vote in local presidential caucuses unless they have taken part in another Democratic caucus or another party's primaries. Under state law, Kansas is a closed primary state, meaning that only members of a given party can vote in that party's primary.
Texas Democratic primary - summary
Election Date: March 9, 2004
8,491 of 8,491 precincts - 100.0% Updated: 3/11/2004 9:04 AM
   Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates 
 John Kerry 563,030 67.0% 183 
 John Edwards 120,533 14.3% 10 
 Howard Dean 40,038 4.8%
 Al Sharpton 31,169 3.7%
 Joe Lieberman 25,635 3.0%
 Wesley Clark 18,401 2.2%
 Dennis Kucinich 16,023 1.9%
 Dick Gephardt 12,380 1.5%
 Lyndon LaRouche 7,100 0.8%
 Randy Crow 6,468 0.8%
   Total: 840,777    
Detailed Texas results
Mississippi Democratic primary - summary
Election Date: March 9, 2004
2,184 of 2,184 precincts - 100.0% Updated: 3/10/2004 7:27 AM
   Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates 
 John Kerry 58,927 77.9% 33 
 John Edwards 5,562 7.4%
 Al Sharpton 3,865 5.1%
 Howard Dean 1,955 2.6%
 Wesley Clark 1,884 2.5%
 Uncommitted 1,638 2.2%
 Dennis Kucinich 773 1.0%
 Joe Lieberman 764 1.0%
 Lyndon LaRouche 249 0.3%
 Dick Gephardt 29 0.0%
   Total: 75,646    
Detailed Mississippi results
Back to top
Louisiana Democratic primary - summary
Election Date: March 9, 2004
4,129 of 4,131 precincts - 100.0% Updated: 3/10/2004 7:28 AM
   Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates 
 John Kerry 111,818 69.7% 42 
 John Edwards 25,806 16.1% 10 
 Howard Dean 7,892 4.9%
 Wesley Clark 7,052 4.4%
 Bill McGaughey 3,142 2.0%
 Dennis Kucinich 2,395 1.5%
 Lyndon LaRouche 2,314 1.4%
   Total: 160,419    
Detailed Louisiana results
Florida Democratic primary - summary
Election Date: March 9, 2004
6,671 of 6,733 precincts - 99.1% Updated: 3/10/2004 7:26 AM
   Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates 
 John Kerry 573,592 77.3% 119 
 John Edwards 73,660 9.9%
 Al Sharpton 20,542 2.8%
 Howard Dean 20,427 2.8%
 Dennis Kucinich 17,100 2.3%
 Joe Lieberman 13,867 1.9%
 Wesley Clark 9,986 1.3%
 Carol Moseley Braun 6,626 0.9%
 Dick Gephardt 6,048 0.8%
   Total: 741,848    
Detailed Florida results
Vermont Democratic primary - summary
Election Date: March 2, 2004
260 of 260 precincts - 100.0% Updated: 3/4/2004 2:27 PM
   Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates 
 Howard Dean 44,313 57.5%
 John Kerry 26,134 33.9%
 Dennis Kucinich 3,404 4.4%
 Wesley Clark 2,760 3.6%
 Lyndon LaRouche 390 0.5%
   Total: 77,001    
Detailed Vermont results


Rhode Island Democratic primary - summary
Election Date: March 2, 2004
267 of 267 precincts - 100.0% Updated: 3/4/2004 2:28 PM
   Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates 
 John Kerry 24,073 71.4% 17 
 John Edwards 6,359 18.9%
 Howard Dean 1,315 3.9%
 Dennis Kucinich 1,028 3.0%
 Uncommitted 388 1.2%
 Joe Lieberman 286 0.8%
 Wesley Clark 219 0.6%
 Lyndon LaRouche 55 0.2%
   Total: 33,723    
Detailed Rhode Island results
Ohio Democratic primary - summary
Election Date: March 2, 2004
11,507 of 11,507 precincts - 100.0% Updated: 3/4/2004 2:24 PM
   Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates 
 John Kerry 617,611 51.7% 81 
 John Edwards 408,175 34.2% 55 
 Dennis Kucinich 107,685 9.0%
 Howard Dean 30,213 2.5%
 Joe Lieberman 14,268 1.2%
 Wesley Clark 12,327 1.0%
 Lyndon LaRouche 3,921 0.3%
   Total: 1,194,200    
Detailed Ohio results
New York Democratic primary - summary
Election Date: March 2, 2004
13,779 of 13,817 precincts - 99.7% Updated: 3/4/2004 6:07 PM
   Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates 
 John Kerry 407,643 60.5% 174 
 John Edwards 136,232 20.2% 54 
 Al Sharpton 54,765 8.1%
 Dennis Kucinich 36,224 5.4%
 Howard Dean 18,815 2.8%
 Joe Lieberman 8,756 1.3%
 Dick Gephardt 4,820 0.7%
 Wesley Clark 3,615 0.5%
 Lyndon LaRouche 2,938 0.4%
   Total: 673,808    
Detailed New York results
Back to top


Minnesota Democratic caucus - summary
Election Date: March 2, 2004
3,678 of 4,100 precincts - 89.7% Updated: 3/4/2004 9:03 PM
   Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates 
 John Kerry 26,249 51.0% 41 
 John Edwards 13,914 27.0% 22 
 Dennis Kucinich 8,666 16.8%
 Uncommitted 1,143 2.2%
 Howard Dean 1,007 2.0%
 Al Sharpton 308 0.6%
 Wesley Clark 165 0.3%
 Joe Lieberman 66 0.1%
   Total: 51,518    
Detailed Minnesota results


Massachusetts Democratic primary - summary
Election Date: March 2, 2004
2,166 of 2,166 precincts - 100.0% Updated: 3/4/2004 9:08 PM
   Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates 
 John Kerry 440,929 71.9% 80 
 John Edwards 108,740 17.7% 13 
 Dennis Kucinich 25,010 4.1%
 Howard Dean 17,010 2.8%
 Al Sharpton 6,097 1.0%
 Joe Lieberman 5,435 0.9%
 Uncommitted 3,914 0.6%
 Wesley Clark 3,124 0.5%
 Dick Gephardt 1,455 0.2%
 Lyndon LaRouche 974 0.2%
 Carol Moseley Braun 948 0.2%
   Total: 613,636    
Detailed Massachusetts results
Maryland Democratic primary - summary
Election Date: March 2, 2004
1,779 of 1,779 precincts - 100.0% Updated: 3/4/2004 2:23 PM
   Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates 
 John Kerry 276,899 59.6% 41 
 John Edwards 119,296 25.7% 22 
 Al Sharpton 21,241 4.6%
 Howard Dean 11,756 2.5%
 Dennis Kucinich 8,359 1.8%
 Uncommitted 8,104 1.7%
 Joe Lieberman 5,018 1.1%
 Wesley Clark 4,062 0.9%
 Mildred Glover 3,837 0.8%
 Carol Moseley Braun 2,704 0.6%
 Dick Gephardt 1,995 0.4%
 Lyndon LaRouche 1,498 0.3%
   Total: 464,769    
Detailed Maryland results


Georgia Democratic primary - summary
Election Date: March 2, 2004
3,128 of 3,130 precincts - 99.9% Updated: 3/4/2004 9:06 PM
   Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates 
 John Kerry 288,448 46.7% 41 
 John Edwards 256,832 41.5% 37 
 Al Sharpton 38,474 6.2%
 Howard Dean 11,126 1.8%
 Dennis Kucinich 7,617 1.2%
 Joe Lieberman 5,581 0.9%
 Wesley Clark 4,161 0.7%
 Carol Moseley Braun 3,682 0.6%
 Dick Gephardt 2,324 0.4%
   Total: 618,245    
Detailed Georgia results


Connecticut Democratic primary - summary
Election Date: March 2, 2004
716 of 716 precincts - 100.0% Updated: 3/4/2004 2:03 PM
   Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates 
 John Kerry 75,680 58.3% 35 
 John Edwards 30,786 23.7% 14 
 Joe Lieberman 6,703 5.2%
 Howard Dean 5,155 4.0%
 Dennis Kucinich 4,118 3.2%
 Al Sharpton 3,304 2.5%
 Wesley Clark 1,547 1.2%
 Lyndon LaRouche 1,470 1.1%
 Uncommitted 988 0.8%
   Total: 129,751    
Detailed Connecticut results


California Democratic primary - summary
Election Date: March 2, 2004
21,796 of 21,796 precincts - 100.0% Updated: 3/4/2004 2:03 PM
   Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates 
 John Kerry 1,766,855 64.5% 288 
 John Edwards 539,900 19.7% 82 
 Dennis Kucinich 125,938 4.6%
 Howard Dean 116,243 4.2%
 Al Sharpton 51,964 1.9%
 Joe Lieberman 47,001 1.7%
 Wesley Clark 46,088 1.7%
 Carol Moseley Braun 21,496 0.8%
 Dick Gephardt 17,413 0.6%
 Lyndon LaRouche 7,125 0.3%
   Total: 2,740,023    
Detailed California results
Hawaii Caucuses

And with 99 percent of precincts reporting in Hawaii's caucuses, Kerry won 46 percent of the vote, against 13 percent for Edwards -- House of Representatives member for Ohio Dennis Kucinich came in second with 30 percent of the vote.

Idaho Caucuses

Kerry outpaced North Carolina Sen. John Edwards 68 percent to 20 percent with more than half the results in from the Idaho race. With three-quarters of the precincts reporting from Utah, Kerry led Edwards 54-22 percent.

Utah primary
   Candidates Votes % Del
 Kerry 19,432 55 5
   Edwards 10,486 30 3
   Kucinich 2,602 7 0
   Dean 1,343 4 0
   Clark 492 1 0
   Lieberman 407 1 0
   Uncommitted 305 1 0
   Gephardt 124 0 0
 100% of precincts Updated: 10:46 AM


Wisconsin primary - 2-17-04
   Candidates Votes % Del
 Kerry 327,669 40 30
   Edwards 283,326 34 24
   Dean 150,682 18 13
   Kucinich 27,231 3 0
   Sharpton 14,685 2 0
   Clark 12,687 2 0
   Lieberman 3,910 0 0
   LaRouche 1,630 0 0
   Braun 1,630 0 0
 100% of precincts Updated: 1:32 > Politics > Elections 2004
Nevada Democratic Caucuses
Updated 2/16/04
100% Precincts Reporting
declared winner
 Candidates Delegates  % 
Sen. John F. Kerry 2,252  63% 
Howard Dean 601  17% 
Sen. John Edwards 373  10% 
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich 241  7% 
Uncommitted 90  3% 
Al Sharpton 25  1% 
Gen. Wesley K. Clark 0  0%



D.C. Democratic Caucuses
Updated 2/16/04
100% Precincts Reporting
declared winner
 Candidates Votes  % 
Sen. John F. Kerry 4,278  47% 
Al Sharpton 1,824  20% 
Howard Dean 1,596  17% 
Sen. John Edwards 927  10% 
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich 303  3% 
Gen. Wesley K. Clark 93  1% 
  Write In 55  1% 
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman 31  0% 
Uncommitted 19  0% 
Virginia Democratic primary - summary
 2307 of 2307 precincts - 100%   
   Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates 
 John F. Kerry 203,486 52% 54 
   John S. Edwards 104,782 27% 28 
   Wesley K. Clark 36,461 9%
   Howard Dean 27,582 7%
   Al Sharpton 12,822 3%
   Dennis J. Kucinich 5,074 1%
   Joe Lieberman 2,889 1%
   Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. 1,043 0%
   Dick Gephardt 581 0%
   Total: 394,720    


  Tennessee Democratic primary


Votes Vote % Delegates 
 John Kerry 150,185 41% 31 
   John Edwards 96,732 26% 20 
   Wesley Clark 84,589 23% 18 
   Howard Dean 15,985 4%
   Al Sharpton 6,080 2%
   Joe Lieberman 3,176 1%
   Uncommitted 2,697 1%
   Carol Moseley Braun 2,426 1%
   Dennis Kucinich 2,264 1%
   Dick Gephardt 1,383 0%
   Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. 290 0%
   Total: 365,807

Maine caucus 24 delegates at stake

Kerry outpaced Dean by a nearly 2-to-1 margin in the state, with Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio a distant third.

Caucus results remain unofficial

Technical glitches, human mistakes and surprisingly high voter turnout are complicating the state Democratic Party's efforts to come up with official results for Sunday's caucuses.

 Dottie Melanson, who chairs the state Democratic party, said Tuesday. "Some towns' numbers did not add up, some may not have held caucuses and others "were managing their caucuses in their own unique ways" that had to be reconciled with party rules.

Under party rules, municipalities have until Feb. 15 to get their numbers to the party's headquarters in Augusta.

With 88 percent of municipalities reporting Tuesday evening, U.S. Sen. John Kerry's numbers fell slightly, from 45 percent of the vote to 44 percent. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's numbers increased from 26 percent to 28 percent. Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich remained at 16 percent, North Carolina Sen. John Edwards stayed at 8 percent, former Army Gen. Wesley Clark stayed at 4 percent and 1 percent remained uncommitted.



Washington Democratic caucus - 
summary 6326 of 6552 precincts - 97%

Candidate            Votes Vote %

Wesley Clark           713 3%
Howard Dean         6583 30%
John Edwards         1463 7%
John Kerry           10578 49%
Dennis Kucinich  1695 8%
Al Sharpton            13 0%
Uncommitted       727 3%

Total: 21,772

02/07/2004 - Michigan Democratic caucuses - summary 590 of 590 precincts -100 %

Candidate                  Votes Vote %

Carol Moseley Braun   163         0%
Wesley Clark            10986         7%
Howard Dean            26994       17%
John Edwards            21919       13%
Dick Gephardt              944         1%
John Kerry                84214       52%
Dennis Kucinich          5183         3%
Joe Lieberman              682         0%
Al Sharpton               11270         7%
Uncommitted                 476         0%
Write In                          98         0%

Total: 162,929


South Carolina.
 John Edwards  128,819 45% 28 
   John Kerry 86,751 30% 17 
   Al Sharpton 27,640 10%
   Wesley Clark 20,628 7%
   Howard Dean 13,457 5%
   Joe Lieberman 6,993 2%
   Dennis Kucinich 1,277 0%
   Dick Gephardt 611 0%
   Carol Moseley Braun 572 0%


Oklahoma, Clark and Edwards 
both carried close to 30 percent of Oklahoma votes. 
Kerry came in third in Oklahoma with nearly 27 percent
  Wesley Clark  90,469  30%  15 
   John Edwards 89,224 30% 13 
   John Kerry 81,012 27% 12 
   Joe Lieberman 19,674 7%
   Howard Dean 12,719 4%
   Al Sharpton 3,938 1%
   Dennis Kucinich 2,544 1%
   Dick Gephardt 1,889 1%



 John Kerry 16,729 50% 14 
   Joe Lieberman 3,683 11%
   John Edwards 3,657 11%
   Howard Dean 3,439 10%
   Wesley Clark 3,145 9%
   Al Sharpton 1,885 6%
   Dennis Kucinich 343 1%


(At stake, 74 delegates to the Democratic National Convention)
Kerry won about 50 percent of the vote 
 John F. Kerry 211,737 51% 36 
   John Edwards 103,198 25% 20 
   Howard Dean 36,305 9%
   Wesley K. Clark 18,328 4%
   Joe Lieberman 14,726 4%
   Al Sharpton 14,312 3%
   Dick Gephardt 8,306 2%
   Dennis J. Kucinich 4,876 1%


269 committed delegates 
about 12 percent of the 2,161 
needed to win the nomination. 
74 delegates, Missouri was the
 biggest prize. 
Arizona followed with 55.
State-by-state results
State Votes % Del 
AZ   Kerry 95,055 43% 30 
DE   Kerry 16,729 50% 14 
MO   Kerry 211,737 51% 36 
NM   Kerry 40,347 42% 10 
OK   Clark 90,469 30% 15 
SC   Edwards 128,819 45% 28 
 Complete results




 John Kerry 95,055 43% 30 
   Wesley Clark 59,712 27% 22 
   Howard Dean 31,007 14%
   John Edwards 15,498 7%
   Joe Lieberman 14,656 7%
   Dennis Kucinich 3,628 2%
   Al Sharpton 1,100 0%

 New Mexico,
 John Kerry 40,347 42% 10 
   Wesley Clark 19,632 21%
   Howard Dean 15,660 16%
   John Edwards 10,815 11%
   Dennis Kucinich 5,166 5%
   Joe Lieberman 2,488 3%

North Dakota 
New Mexico and North Dakota also hold caucuses the same day.
North Dakota delegates are uncommitted

New Hampshire

 John Kerry 

84,229 38% 13 
   Howard Dean 57,788 26%
   Wesley Clark 27,254 12%
  John Edwards 26,416 12%
   Joe Lieberman 18,829 9%
   Dennis Kucinich 3,104 1%
   Dick Gephardt 398 0%
   Al Sharpton 345 0%
   George W Bush (WI) 115 0%
   Katherine Bateman 92 0%
   Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. 88 0%
   Carol Moseley Braun 82 0%
   Edward Thomas O'Donnell Jr. 80 0%
   Willie Felix Carter 77 0%
   Randy Crow 72 0%
   Vincent S. Hamm 55 0%

Saturday January 10, 04

• Delegate count

Here is the current number of delegates committed to each of the Democratic presidential candidates:

Dean 88
Gephardt 59
Kerry 54
Clark 27
Lieberman 25
Edwards 15
Moseley Braun 3
Sharpton 3
Kucinich 2

Iowa caucus Candidate Votes % Delegates  1-19-04

John Kerry 1,128 38% 4
John Edwards 960 32% 4
Howard Dean 540 18% 2
Dick Gephardt 315 11% 0
Dennis Kucinich 39 1% 0
Wesley Clark 3 0% 0
Uncommitted 3 0% 0
Joe Lieberman 0 0% 0
Carol Moseley Braun 0 0% 0
Al Sharpton 0 0% 0


No Delegates were won in the Washington, D.C. primary election on January 13,
as it was basically symbolic and only half of he candidates were on the ballot

3-16-03 - VISIONS


BEN - Saw  him 3 times - His pocket said  WIS

VIKI - Saw her 3 times - Her pocket said  WIS

I assumed that this meant things were okay.  That was just a guess though, because I'm from Wisconsin and their pockets seemed to represent that.

I then saw a dark haired guy. His pocket said, BAAL.

I heard a bell ring and there sat Bill Clinton, sitting on the corner of a desk.  His pocket said  REPO

So, President Clinton is the REPO-MAN!!!  And I believe he wants to take the country back to the Democratic party, OR take back the Democratic party for the people.


Howard Dean

John Edwards

Richard Gephardt

Bob Graham

Dean News
Withdrew 2-18-04

Edwards News

Gephardt News
Withdrew 1-19-04

Graham News
Withdrew - 10-06-03

John Kerry

Dennis Kucinich

Joseph Lieberman
Withdrew 2-3-04

Carol Mosely-Braun
Withdrew 1-15-04

Kerry News

Kucinich News

Lieberman News

 Braun News

Al Sharpton

Al Gore

Wesley Clark
Withdrew 2-11-04

Sharpton News

 Al Gore Speech

Clark News

Nancy Pelosi    William Clinton    Hillary Clinton

Pelosi News   .......         Clinton News   ...........................



Democrats clash in early debate

Sunday, May 4, 2003

Sen. John Edwards, right, and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean during Saturday's debate.

COLUMBIA, South Carolina (CNN) -- While they united against President Bush, nine Democratic presidential hopefuls squabbled Saturday night over the war in Iraq, health care, and tax cuts.

The 90-minute debate, the earliest formal nationally televised debate in presidential campaign history, was held at the University of South Carolina. It came nearly nine months before the first scheduled presidential primary of the 2004 campaign, and 18 months before the general election.

Participating in the event were former Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Bob Graham, Rep. Richard Gephardt, Sen. John Kerry, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, 2000 Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Joseph Lieberman and activist Al Sharpton.

The candidates began by facing off on the military, defense, and the war in Iraq.

"No Democrat will be elected in 2004 who is not strong on defense," said Lieberman, of Connecticut.

Kerry, of Massachusetts, reminded Dean of the governor's recent comment that America must prepare for the day when it does not have the strongest military in the world.

"I disagree," Kerry said. "I believe that anybody who thinks that they have to prepare for the day that we're not the strongest is preparing for a day when we have serious problems."

Dean responded, "No commander-in-chief would ever -- and I am no exception -- willingly allow our military influence to shrink. Unilateralism is a mistake ... I think the senator made a mistake in criticizing me."

Sensing the divide could overshadow the issues, the other candidates at the table then tried to contain it.

"We're not fighting each other," said Gephardt, of Missouri. "We're trying to select one of us to be the opponent of [President] George Bush."

"The squabble between Howard Dean and John Kerry may make interesting political theater, but it doesn't send the right message to the voters about our party," said Lieberman.

"Republicans are watching," joked Sharpton, of New York. "Let's not start fighting."

Democratic presidential hopefuls Sens. Bob Graham, left, and John Kerry

The debate was taped for later broadcast on ABC stations around the country. It was moderated by George Stephanopoulos, who hosts ABC's Sunday program, "This Week." Stephanopoulos served as a White House aide during the Clinton administration.

Gephardt's health care plan, unveiled last week, was another major issue. Edwards, of North Carolina, said he applauds Gephardt for addressing the issue, but differs in how to do it.

In particular, Edwards said he disagrees with giving tax credits to corporations that would be required to provide health insurance to their employees. He said it takes money "directly" out of taxpayers' hands.

"I think that's taking money that people desperately need, giving it to people -- the very people -- that we've had trouble with," Edwards said, referring to the recent spate of corporate scandals. "It feels like saying, 'You're in good hands with Enron.'"

Kerry sided with Edwards, saying Gephardt's plan boils down to a money transfer that only rewards corporations for what most are already doing -- providing insurance to their workers.

Kucinich, of Ohio, offered his own plan: phasing in a 7.7 percent payroll tax on all employers, with revenues to be the "mainstay" of a national health care plan.

"We need to get the profit out of health care, and that means get the private insurance companies out of health care," he said. "Any plan that is offered to the American people that fails to do that is not going to deliver the best-quality universal health care."

Dean, who touted his credentials as both a governor and a doctor, proposed giving Medicaid to everyone younger than 25. Prescription drug benefits would be offered to all senior citizens, and those in between -- aged 25 to 65 -- would receive subsidies if they need help buying insurance or work for companies that don't offer it.

Lieberman chided such ideas as "the kind of big-spending Democratic ideas of the past" and said the nation can't afford them.

South Carolina, which holds its primary February 3, 2004, is a key early state on the Democratic calendar. Its primary is the first in the South and follows the New Hampshire primary and Iowa caucuses.

It is also one of the most solidly Republican outposts in the South. No Democratic presidential candidate has carried the state since Jimmy Carter in 1976, and both the governor's mansion and legislature are in GOP hands.

In 2000, Democrats lost every state in the region to Bush.

Graham, of Florida, played up the fact that he and Edwards are both from the South.

"Who have been the last three Democratically elected presidents?" he asked. "Lyndon Johnson from Texas, Jimmy Carter from Georgia, and Bill Clinton from Arkansas. That says something about what it takes to be elected."

Constitutional rights also came up Saturday. When asked, Edwards, Lieberman, and Moseley-Braun, of Illinois, all said they disagree with laws such as South Carolina's ban on consensual sodomy.

Moseley-Braun then brought up the Patriot Act, signed by Congress in late 2001, which grants wide powers for federal wiretaps and searches of e-mail messages.

"I really think we have a real crisis in America when it comes to our civil liberties, and I do hope that this act will be repealed," she said. "I hope that we will all take very seriously rolling back some of the assault on privacy that this administration has begun."

Edwards chimed in, agreeing the law is of "serious concern."

"I think the problem with the Patriot Act is not the law itself, it's the way it's being administered, particularly the way it's being administered by the attorney general of the United States, General Ashcroft," Edwards said. "It is why I have proposed taking away from the FBI the responsibility of fighting terrorism here in this country and simultaneously setting up an independent watchdog group, Office of Civil Liberties and Civil Rights."

Gun rights was another constitutional issue raised Saturday.

Stephanopoulos challenged Lieberman to defend the proposal that presidential candidate Al Gore had when the two ran on the same ticket in 2000 -- the licensing of all newly bought handguns.

Surprisingly, Lieberman said he never supported the proposal, which he said Gore came up with before he came on board.

"The American citizens have a right to own firearms," he said. "Licensing, registration, in my opinion, are bad ideas and violations of that fundamental right."

When Stephanopoulos then asked whether any of the candidates would support licensing and registration of handguns, Sharpton was the only one to say that he would.

"I think that we must do whatever we can to regulate how guns are used," he said.

Later in the debate, candidates had the chance to pose one question to a fellow candidate. Lieberman, for whom voting problems in Florida played such a big part in the 2000 election, asked Moseley-Braun what she would do to ensure every vote is counted in 2004.

She responded that voting must be made easier for everyone, with programs like "motor-voter" and at-home registration.

"We need to pursue opportunities for individuals to vote instead of making it a high hurdle that they have to leap," she said, "and in all cases make certain that we never again allow for the stealing of an election, as happened with you and Sen. Gore."

Before Saturday's debate, the earliest nationally televised presidential debate was held during the 1988 campaign, when seven Democratic candidates met in Houston, Texas, on July 1, 1987.

Democrats seeking White House reach out to Hispanic leaders

Forum indicates growth of ethnic group's power; Bush economic plan assailed

By Mark Z. Barabak

Special To The Sun

Originally published June 29, 2003

PHOENIX - In a sign of growing Hispanic political influence, more than half the Democratic presidential contestants traveled to the sweltering desert yesterday to pitch themselves to a gathering of elected Hispanic leaders from across the United States.

Sprinkling in phrases in Spanish, the candidates repeatedly circled back to criticism of President Bush's economic plan, urging repeal of some or all of the administration's $1.7 billion in tax cuts. They vowed to expand access to health care, help small businesses and entrepreneurs, and make home ownership more accessible.

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts offered one of the few new proposals, a plan aimed at reducing the cost of cashing checks for Hispanic immigrants and of sending money to friends and family in other countries.

The first-of-its-kind forum highlighted the 20th annual conference of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, which drew about 1,000 Hispanic officeholders to this sprawling southwestern capital. A day earlier, two other Democratic hopefuls addressed the gathering, speaking by satellite from Washington.

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut condemned "allies of George Bush" for pursuing a "so-called racial privacy initiative" in California that would prevent government agencies from collecting and analyzing racial data pertaining to education, health care, law enforcement and other government programs.

"That is plain wrong," Lieberman said. "It's time we stand up to the president and his allies and say, 'No mas. No mas,'" he added, though the president has taken no stand on the measure, which has yet to make the ballot.

Sen. Bob Graham of Florida accused Bush of turning his back on Mexico and Latin America and, like other candidates, promised better relations with the country's hemispheric neighbors, as well as a more humane immigration policy. For starters, Graham said, he would fire Attorney General John Ashcroft, a promise that drew one of the biggest ovations of the three-day conference - and was echoed at yesterday's session by Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

The forum, attended by six of the nine presidential hopefuls, underscored the growing political influence of Hispanics, now being ardently courted by both major parties. The White House dispatched several representatives to speak at a lunch Friday, and the Republican National Committee stationed a spokeswoman at the palm-studded conference hotel to offer comments in English and Spanish.

Bush actively pursued the Hispanic vote in 2000 and was rewarded with 38 percent support, according to a Los Angeles Times exit poll, nearly double the backing received four years earlier by GOP nominee Bob Dole. White House strategists would like to improve on that performance next year, mindful that Hispanic voters could spell the difference in a close contest.

But even before November 2004, the Hispanic vote could be crucial in deciding the Democratic nomination, said Adam J. Segal, a Johns Hopkins University expert who released a study Friday highlighting what he called "Hispanic Tuesday."

On that day - Feb. 3 - two states with substantial Hispanic populations, New Mexico and Arizona, will participate in the third round of presidential voting, following the kickoff contests in Iowa and New Hampshire. That means Hispanics could have a "greater ability to influence the outcome of primaries than at any previous time," Segal wrote.

As if to accent that point, the Democratic Party announced that two of six party-sanctioned debates will be held this year in Albuquerque, N.M., and Phoenix.

Still, for all the attention paid the Hispanic community, the bulk of yesterday's two-hour forum dwelt on issues little different from those discussed at assorted other candidate gatherings, or during question-and-answer sessions with voters in the living rooms of Iowa and New Hampshire.

One wrinkle was the attempt by several candidates to deliver at least some of their remarks in Spanish. They showed varying degrees of facility.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean gave virtually his entire two-minute opening statement in fluent Spanish. Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich tried the same, with considerably less aplomb. The Rev. Al Sharpton joked that he was going to try, too, but the people who needed to hear his words were not those who spoke Spanish, but those who speak English and "are hurting the people who speak Spanish."

"I remind you, George Bush can speak Spanish, but he's wrong in English and Spanish," Sharpton said, drawing whoops from the crowd.

The only Democratic presidential hopeful to skip the conference was former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun.

Mark Z. Barabak is a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, a Tribune Publishing newspaper.

Copyright © 2003, The Baltimore Sun



Women's groups back Braun for president

Feminist leaders endorse Democrat as longtime ally


The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Carol Moseley Braun credited support from two major women's groups for her decision to formally launch her campaign next month.

WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate Carol Moseley Braun won the backing Tuesday of two major women's groups and said their support "guarantees" the formal launch of her campaign next month.

The National Organization for Women's Political Action Committee, or NOW/PAC, and the National Women's Political Caucus made the unusual early endorsements as they cited Braun for her long-standing support for their issues.

Although the feminist leaders offered no objections to the other eight Democratic candidates, they made no apologies for making the only woman, who is also a decided long shot, their favorite.

"We are particularly pleased that out of a field of strong progressive candidates, the strongest feminist candidate turns out to be a woman," said National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy.

She said Braun has been an ally going back three decades to the attempt to win ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Asked later about the message sent by the endorsement, Gandy said: "Every time a woman runs for office at a higher level, it opens the door for other women."

In the past, NOW endorsed then-Rep. Shirley Chisholm, a New York Democrat who ran a symbolic campaign for the presidency in 1972. (NOW's only other primary endorsement was for Vice President Walter Mondale in the 1984 elections.)

Braun, who served as a one-term U.S. senator from Illinois and ambassador to New Zealand, has been running a low-profile campaign that has had difficulty attracting donors.

As of the end of June, the campaign had just $22,000 in the bank. Even so, her backers note that she has ranked higher than some better-financed competitors in some public opinion polls and is ahead in her home state.

The endorsements are no guarantee of an influx of cash. Political action committees can donate no more than $5,000. However, leaders of the women's groups said they would encourage members to donate to Braun's campaign.

Braun, speaking at the National Press Club here, credited the "powerful encouragement" from the women's groups for her decision to officially announce her candidacy on Sept. 22.

"Together we are going to take the 'men only' sign off the White House door," Braun said.


Democrat Moseley Braun launches bid for presidency


Nedra Pickler

Associated Press

Washington- Democrat Carol Moseley Braun, who made history as the first black woman elected to the U.S. Senate, formally launched her bid for the presidency yesterday, vowing to "fix the mess" created by the current leadership.

Braun faces nine other Democratic candidates - all men who, for the most part, have raised more money and are beating her in the polls. Nevertheless, she is forging ahead with her campaign, arguing that as a former ambassador, senator and local government official, she is uniquely qualified to be president.

"I offer the clearest alternative to this current administration, whose only new idea has been pre-emptive war and a huge new bureaucracy," she said in an announcement at Howard University. "I can fix the mess they have created because I am practical, I am not afraid of partnerships and I am committed to making the world a better place for our children."

Braun stunned the political establishment in 1992 - the "Year of the Woman" - unseating an incumbent Democratic senator in the primary, two-term lawmaker Alan Dixon, on her way to what was once considered an improbable victory in November.

Her election was heralded as an advance for women and mi norities, but her popularity proved short-lived amid accusations that she exercised poor judgment in visiting Nigeria's former dictator Sani Abacha and misused campaign funds.

A campaign finance investigation cleared Braun, but she lost her seat to Republican challenger Peter Fitzgerald in 1998. After the defeat, President Clinton appointed her ambassador to New Zealand.

Braun used her announcement speech to present her vision for the future - "an American renaissance" - and criticize President Bush's record on national security, particularly the U.S.-led war in Iraq, and the economy.

Braun took questions from a handful of Howard University students and reporters following her speech. She fielded broad questions about poverty and chil dren, and more specific queries about the command and control of U.S. troops in Iraq.

A fierce opponent of the war, Braun said the United States will work to ensure a peaceful Iraq. "Americans don't cut and run. We have to see this misadventure through," she said.

Yesterday's kickoff schedule started with speeches at two historically black colleges - Howard and Benedict College in Columbia, S.C. Braun's final appearance was scheduled in her hometown of Chicago, where she got her start in politics 25 years ago with election to the Illinois legislature.

© 2003 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission.


Braun paves way to White House for women in future, groups say


Register Staff Writer


Carol Moseley Braun's introduction to racism came when she was born in a segregated hospital in Chicago.

It was Aug. 16, 1947, and she was mistaken for white because her mother was fair-skinned. The hospital staff was shocked when they saw her father and realized the family was black.

The Moseleys were moved to the "colored" section of the hospital, but the paperwork had been processed. As a result, Braun's birth certificate said she was white until she was 40, when she became a legislator and was able to change it.

"I'm old enough to have spanned from times when we had legalized segregation in this country," said Braun, 56, one of 10 Democratic candidates for president. "It reflects very nicely on the progress we've made. The American dream has been expanded."

From that upbringing as a second-class citizen came a woman who went to law school and became an assistant U.S. attorney in Chicago, an Illinois state lawmaker for 10 years, a U.S. senator, and an ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa.

For a time, she was the darling of the media and a symbol of progress. She fought for education and civil rights, and she was especially known in Congress for her efforts to secure federal money for school construction and repair. She also spoke sharply against the Confederate flag, saying it symbolizes divisiveness.

"I think there are very few politicians more gifted than Carol Moseley Braun," said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, a Democrat who is a civil-rights attorney, University of Chicago law professor and candidate for U.S. Senate. "She can light up a room. She's extraordinarily intelligent, a very clear and analytical thinker."

But some critics said Braun's distinction of being the only African-American woman elected to the U.S. Senate has been tainted by ill-advised trips, poor judgment, and accusations of campaign and personal misspending that led to her political defeat in 1998.

"I used to be a great supporter of hers," said Hermene Hartman, publisher and founder of N'Digo, a black weekly newspaper in Chicago. "I thought she held great promise. She energized women as a base, she energized blacks as a base, and she won her historical seat. She disappointed us in the seat. She made terrible decisions."

Today when reporters ask for an interview with Braun, her campaign staff in Chicago immediately mails out a thick packet of materials defending Braun's record.

The documents - many disclosed during Braun's confirmation as ambassador - show allegations from the 1990s of campaign misspending, a five-year investigation by the Internal Revenue Service, and trips to Nigeria taken against the wishes of the State Department because the African nation was ruled by dictator Sani Abacha, who had an egregious human-rights record.

Braun said the Federal Election Commission audit found only $311.28 in unaccounted-for campaign contributions. The IRS investigation, which involved her personal and campaign records, was closed for a lack of substance, she said, and her trips to Nigeria were privately financed, personal in nature and meant no harm.

"I'm not defensive about it at all," Braun said of her record. "The truth is my friend. There was nothing untoward in any aspect of my public service. I've been vindicated on every front for all of this nasty stuff."

But Hartman, the newspaper publisher, said Braun simply didn't appreciate her responsibilities as U.S. senator and shouldn't be running for president. Hartman cited an example from the 1990s, when President Bill Clinton flew to Chicago for a $2,000-a-plate fund-raiser. The event was to benefit Braun, but she didn't show up.

"Things like that have not sat well with the public here," Hartman said in an interview from Chicago. "With a consistency, she has shown poor judgment. She has shown basically a disrespect, if not a downright insult, to her constituency."

Braun, who said after her failed 1998 Senate re-election that she would never run for public office again, decided in February to explore a bid for the presidency. She confirmed her decision last week by formally announcing her candidacy.

Obama, the Illinois state lawmaker, said history is replete with second acts in politics, and Braun deserves a fresh look. National women's advocates are also looking to Braun as a ray of hope.

"We want to see a woman in the White House," said Mosemarie Boyd, president of American Women Presidents, a California group that urges women politicians to seek the White House. "Carol is doing more for women in the presidency than anyone else in the country at this point."

Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, said Braun is a longtime advocate of women's rights, working as a state legislator in the late 1970s and early 1980s on issues such as the Equal Rights Amendment campaign.

"She has an ability to speak to women who have not felt they've been part of the process," said Gandy, whose group endorsed Braun in August. "Not only does it advance the cause of beating George W. Bush, but it also advances the goal of daughters and granddaughters to see this as a possibility for themselves."

Iowa polls have consistently shown Braun at or near the bottom of the pack, with less than 1 percent of the vote. National polls taken since Gen. Wesley Clark's Sept. 17 entrance into the presidential race show Braun in ninth place, only before Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.

Campaign finance reports filed June 30 show she raised $217,109, ranking second-to-last among the candidates. Only the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York raised less.

"I just don't know if she has what it takes to make it," said state Rep. Helen Miller, a Fort Dodge Democrat. "She doesn't spend much time here in Iowa. I really don't see her as being that terribly viable. She doesn't have much of a following. I haven't run into anyone who's a supporter of her."

David Loebsack, a Mount Vernon Democrat and political science professor at Cornell College, complimented Braun as being very bright and articulate, and someone who knows the issues extremely well.

"Unfortunately for her, Democratic Party activists are unwilling to take her seriously," Loebsack said. "It's difficult to take a candidate seriously when he or she has virtually no organization, no matter how attractive they are, no matter how good they are."

Boyd, of American Women Presidents, said losing a presidential race would not be a major career setback for Braun. She said benefits of running include name recognition, helping to shape the national debate, and building constituencies both personally and within the party.

U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings, a Maryland Democrat who is chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said it was unfortunate that the country doesn't always support women the way it should. He said Braun is a capable, bright leader who is very much in touch with her electorate.

"I know her numbers in the polls are low, but I think that every time a woman or African-American runs for office, it's slowly but surely paving the way for someone who will have a definite chance in the future," said Cummings, who is undecided on whom to support for president.

But Hartman said with so many Democrats running, Braun is coming off as just a "polite lady" and "token candidate" because she is failing to attract attention to issues - such as race, diversity and empowerment - that wouldn't otherwise be raised.

"We've got critical issues before us," Hartman said. "I want to support a person for president not because she's a woman. I want to support them because they can do something. We're talking about the presidency of the United States here, not the PTA."

Braun Quits Race and Endorses Dean for Presidential Nomination


Published: January 15, 2004

ARROLL, Iowa, Jan. 15 — Carol Moseley Braun dropped out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination today and endorsed Howard Dean, who is in a tightening race here four days before the state caucuses.

Ms. Moseley Braun, a former senator from Illinois and a former ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa, failed to garner much money or support in polls and was not particularly active on the campaign trail in recent days.

"The funding and organizational disadvantages of a nontraditional campaign could not, in the end, be overcome, and so this campaign was unable to compete effectively," she said. "Continuing would not have been fair" to her supporters, she added.

Her endorsement of Dr. Dean adds another national figure to the list of Dean supporters as the former Vermont governor finds himself in an extremely tight Iowa race with Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts and Senator John Edwards of the North Carolina.

It was another day of frenetic campaigning in Iowa, as most of the candidates criss-crossed the state rallying supporters and trying to tilt the undecided vote in their favor, employing the usual arsenal of pancake breakfasts and rallies. Mr. Kerry even enlisted a helicopter to shuttle him between events during the closing days of the race.

But Ms. Moseley Braun's withdrawal upstaged other developments as she encouraged her supporters to now gather behind Dr. Dean. "Governor Dean is the candidate best-equipped to continue the progress we need to have, to bring Americans together, to restore our privacy, our liberty and our economic security," Ms. Moseley Braun said as she announced her decision this afternoon, with Dr. Dean and Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa sharing the podium with her. "His leadership will help us live up to our generational responsibilities, and so I am happy to support him."

Dr. Dean praised Ms. Moseley Braun's "dedication, honesty, thoughtfulness, optimism," and told her, "I'm going to miss you at those debates stepping in and defending me." He was referring to a contentious exchange during a debate on Sunday, in which Ms. Moseley Braun, who is black, defended Dr. Dean against complaints by the Rev. Al Sharpton that he had not appointed any members of minorities to his gubernatorial cabinet in Vermont.

According to Joe Trippi, Dr. Dean's campaign manager, Ms. Moseley Braun's endorsement emerged from a conversation after that debate, and crystallized the following day.

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, speaking to reporters today at a coffee shop in Manchester, N.H., said, "I'm sorry to see Carol Moseley Braun withdraw from the race."

"She advanced the cause of opportunity and I regret that she's pulling out," he added. "And I can tell you this: When I'm elected president of the United States, I'm going to convince Carol Moseley Braun to come to work in my administration."

Ms. Moseley Braun made history as the first African-American woman elected to the United States Senate, but she lost her job after one term in 1998, her reputation clouded by accusations of ethical misconduct.

Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist, said that if used well, the endorsement from Ms. Moseley Braun could provide a lift to Dr. Dean's national campaign. Ms. Brazile, who is not part of any campaign, said that Ms. Moseley Braun could rally black women on behalf of Dr. Dean's campaign, particularly in crucial early primary states. "That could reap enormous dividends for the Dean campaign," Ms. Brazile said, adding "If I were Dean, I would say, `Two days rest and I need her back.' "

Meanwhile, Mr. Gephardt stepped up his attacks on Dr. Dean, broadcasting a commercial that criticized him on Medicare and Social Security.

"How much do you really know about Howard Dean?" an announcer asks in the ad, which includes various clips of Dr. Dean talking. "Did you know Howard Dean called Medicare `one of the worst federal programs ever'? Did you know he supported the Republican plan to cut Medicare by $270 billion? And did you know Howard Dean supported cutting Social Security retirement benefits to balance the budget?"

Mr. Gephardt then says, "I will be a president who will fight to protect Medicare and Social Security."

Dr. Dean, who spent the last few days cranking up his attack against Washington politicians and reviving the feisty fighter persona that helped propel his candidacy earlier this year, tried today to focus more on a positive message of jobs and health care.

He continued arguing that the election was about changing Washington, but did so in a softer voice. He even donned a moss-green crewneck sweater, campaigning without a suit and tie for the first time since his visit to a hog farm in October.

"This election is about power," Dr. Dean told the crowd that had gathered in a high school gym here to celebrate Ms. Moseley Braun's televised endorsement. "It's about whether corporations and Washington insiders are going to run our country, or you are."

Senator Harkin, who is criss-crossing Iowa with Dr. Dean's three-bus caravan, said he had suggested that the candidate curtail the angry attack against other candidates that had characterized his campaign on Monday and Wednesday as the race tightened. Senator Harkin said that the campaign's polling of caucus-goers who were undecided a month or two ago showed that four in 10 were backing Dr. Dean, with the other 6 split among Mr. Edwards, Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Kerry.

"I don't know that you get anyone to convert this late, but you do get the undecideds, and they're looking for someone with a positive message," said Senator Harkin, whose aides are in the process of contacting the 4,000 precinct captains who helped him win re-election to the Senate in 2002.

Asked about Mr. Gephardt's latest ad attacking him, Dr. Dean called it "silly" and promised not to respond in kind, even though one of his own ads airing here criticizes his rival's support for the Iraq war

Jodi Wilgoren contributed from Carroll for this article and Kirk Semple contributed from New York.


Wesley Clark Chooses Sides

Wednesday September 03, 2003

Little Rock - General Wesley Clark chooses sides, the Little Rock resident says if he runs for president, he'll run as a Democrat.

General Clark made the announcement on CNN Tuesday. He says it has been a tough transition from the military into politics, but he has decided he is aligned with the Democratic Party.

Clark still won't say whether or not he plans on running for president, only that the decision will be made in the next couple of weeks.

His office says he will not make that announcement exclusively on CNN but will hold some sort of a press conference.


Wesley Clark Hunts for Support on Capitol Hill

Tue September 30, 2003 08:45 PM ET

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Wesley Clark hunted for support for his fledgling presidential campaign in Congress on Tuesday, meeting with 60 House members who came away impressed but mostly not ready to commit.

The retired general, who jumped into the crowded Democratic White House field less than two weeks ago, took questions for about 45 minutes on a variety of domestic issues during his first visit to Capitol Hill as a candidate.

It was the initial exposure to Clark for many of the members of the House of Representatives, who were highly curious about the political rookie's largely unknown views on domestic issues.

"The first impression was a good impression but I'm not ready to jump on board," Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak told reporters, adding Clark "handled himself well" in addressing a variety of matters.

"I'm not ready to sign on yet but I'm impressed," agreed Oregon Rep. Peter DeFazio. "He covered everything from the environment to Main Street Democratic issues, he was well versed and he didn't stumble."

Attendees said Clark was only stumped once during the meeting -- when Nevada Rep. Shelly Berkley asked him about gambling regulations.

The session in a private Capitol Hill townhouse, organized by Arkansas Rep. Marion Berry, drew a larger than expected crowd.

The former NATO commander has earned endorsements from a dozen Democratic members of Congress. Many members said they still had to evaluate the 10 Democrats vying for the right to challenge President Bush in 2004 before deciding on an endorsement.

Rep. John Dingell of Michigan said he will make an endorsement "in due time" but said he was impressed with Clark. Asked if he had ruled anyone out, he said: "Yes, George Bush."

Attendees said Clark, who has taken heat in the last week for his past votes for Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, emphasized his commitment to the Democratic Party.

Rep. David Scott of Georgia said he asked Clark about theories that he was only a placeholder in the race for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the former first lady.

"He said he was not," Scott said, adding that he thought Clark "could bring in a lot of independents and really broaden the appeal of the party."


General Wesley Clark: The Candidate For Democrats Who Really Wish Bush Was Theirs

By Rachel Marsden on 09/30/03

In politics, coalition building is usually a good thing, but the risk in building a "big tent" is that Bozo the Clown just might see it, get a sudden attack of the "warm and fuzzies", and figure that's where he belongs. Such is the case with the Democrats and their newest presidential candidate--General Wesley Clark.

Some say Clark is mainly conservative, others say he's mainly liberal. I'd say General Clark is mainly with his finger in the wind. That doesn't seem to matter too much to Democrats, though. Their tent is so gigantic that they'll gladly welcome a guy who, in 2001, campaigned for Republican candidates, only recently joined the Democratic Party, voted for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan (whom he rightly credits for winning the Cold War)--and has heaped praise on George W. Bush and his administration. According to Internet reporter Matt Drudge, Clark gave a speech at a dinner in Little Rock, Arkansas in May 2001, in which he's quoted as saying, "I'm very glad we've got the great team in office. Men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice...people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there." Comments like that make Clark sound as though he was auditioning for his own role in the Bush administration--an ambition the Democrats apparently admire in their leadership, judging by Clark's popularity.

Ever the Republican until it suited his career to flash-convert into a liberal, Clark has generously praised America's military intervention overseas. Then--in a move more characteristic of a schizophrenic deprived of his meds than a former Commanding General--in a mere 24-hours, Clark went from saying that he supported the war in Iraq to then retracting his statement and saying that he really opposed the war. Surely this must set some kind of a time record for political flip-flopping.

Are Democrats really that desperate to find a guy who can compete with the image of George W. Bush in a flight suit, landing a fighter jet on the runway of the USS Abraham Lincoln? Are they so hard-up that they'll sell out their party's principles completely to hitch their wagon to any military man during a wartime election? The guy's gone as far as saying that he would still be a Republican if Bush advisor Karl Rove had returned his calls. So much for having the integrity to stick to one's convictions and beliefs. In Bush's Texas, Clark would be known as a guy who's "all hat and no cattle." If, as recent polls indicate, Democrats are so keen on Clark being their man to go up against Bush in '04, what they really appear to be suggesting is that they want a flip-flopping Republican drifter running the show--one that lacks Bush's stability, leadership, integrity, and humanitarian compassion. Perhaps it's just too difficult for liberals to resist the thought of a guy with eyes that are wonkier than a Kia transmission, staring longingly at the big, bright red button that makes things go "boom".

Speaking of humanitarian compassion, or lack thereof: It's not surprising that more hasn't been made in the left-leaning media of Clark's involvement in the Waco disaster--an incident that resulted in the murder by toxic gas and arson of more than 80 civilians (dozens women and children included) following a botched raid of cult leader David Koresh's Branch Davidian Complex. Military personnel and equipment used in the operations came from the US Army Base at Ft. Hood, Texas. According to a US Department of Treasury report from September 1993, the army contributed 28 troops (15 active service personnel) and 17 armored vehicles to the operation--which was planned out at the Ft. Hood military complex. And who was in charge at Ft. Hood at this time? Wesley Clark just happened to be the Commander of the 1st Cavalry Division at Ft. Hood from August 1992 to April 1994. Inasmuch as Democrats like to whine about abuse of power, maybe they should consider taking a closer look at the legality of Clark's conduct and actions in relation to Waco. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 makes it "illegal to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress." The Democrats might wish to give some thought to the reasons why Rove may not have returned Clark's calls--thereby forcing him to choose another prom date.

Clark's view of the United Nations may disappoint Democrats who see the organization as the almighty be-all and end-all of world diplomacy. Clark seems to have about as much respect for the UN as Bush does--which is wonderful, unless you're supposed to be a Democrat. The Dems were quick to criticize Bush for his leadership and decisive action when he went into Iraq in order to enforce the 17 UN resolutions in which Saddam Hussein was in violation--and liberated the Iraqi people from a murderous tyrant in the process. Before taking any military action at all, liberals wanted Bush to get every two-bit UN dictator to gather around, hold hands, and sing Kumbaya before signing together on the dotted-line. I'll bet Democrats wouldn't be too pleased to hear that while Clark was a NATO commander of operations in Yugoslavia, he demanded that their beloved UN take a back seat. Clark made it clear that he was in control, and that he wasn't going to give up authority to anyone. Meanwhile, Clark presided over a prolonged, 70-day willy-nilly bombing campaign that was much more a "war of choice" than the recent intervention in Iraq. While Bush took great pains to keep civilian casualties in Iraq to a minimum, Clark's cluster-bombing and targeting of hospitals and old folks' homes have been well-documented.

The Democrats seem to have a thing for guys who can claim to have been "Rhodes Scholars". First Bill Clinton, and now Clark. I'm sure the Rhodes Scholarship selection people are thrilled with their track record: one guy who was so whippet-smart that he couldn't figure out how to keep his pants zipped, and another who is so confused by thinking in shades of gray that he keeps bouncing like a ping-pong ball back and forth across the ideological divide. Note to Dems: You've let Bozo the Clown into the tent--and now he's taking over the three-ring circus. And it's no wonder the Clintons have endorsed Clark. If the Clark strategists succeed in creating a nice, warm place in the spotlight for their blatant, carpet-bagging flip-flopper, then the Clinton advisors could very well end up using him as a place-warmer for Hillary.


October 03, 2003

What's Wesley Clark's Plan for Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt: Some Disturbing Comments

Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo is an excellent resource for information on what’s happening in the nation’s capital. His reporting on the Bush administration’s Iraq fiasco has been magnificent (and his graceful blog has also served as the inspiration behind the MWU design format).

Earlier this week, Marshall interviewed Democratic presidential hopeful General Wesley Clark.

Although there is much to admire about General Clark, he made some disturbing comments on Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.

In rightly criticizing the Bush administration’s singling out of Syria and Lebanon, Clark went on to say:

“But, why is it impossible to take an authoritarian regime in the Middle East and see it gradually transform into something democratic, as opposed to going in, knocking it off, ending up with hundreds of billions of dollars of expenses. And killing people. And in the meantime, leaving this real source of the problems—the states that were our putative allies during the Cold War—leaving them there. Egypt. Saudi Arabia. Pakistan.”

Elsewhere in the interview, Clark seemed to lament the fact that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are not current targets of US military operations:

“What about Saudi Arabia? There’s a source of the funding, the source of the ideology, the source of the recruits. What about Pakistan? With thousands of madrassas churning out ideologically-driven foot soldiers for the war on terror. Neither of those are at the front of the military operations.”

Although Marshall is right to point out that the criticism Clark has received for those remarks from neocons is more than a bit disingenuous, Clark does need to elaborate more on how he’d choose to deal with these countries that he sees as the big threats.

We certainly have not shied away from criticizing the regimes in the three countries he mentioned, but we’re curious as to what Clark would do about them? His comments seem to imply that the Bush administration should be focusing its military threats on them instead of Syria, something that would likely lead to an even more catastrophic result than what we’re currently seeing in Iraq. This is also strange given the General’s professed affinity for multilateralism and opposition to the use of force except as a last resort.

His puzzlement over why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are not “at the front of the military operations” sounds a bit ominous. Does he think they should be? He probably doesn’t, but he needs to make that very clear.

Also, completely missing from his response on solutions to the problems in the region was any mention of Israel/Palestine (with the exception of a passing reference to “my friends in the Israeli Defense Forces”). Most people in that region (of practically all political stripes) firmly believe that a fair resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian dispute would resolve much of the political and economic disaster that prevails in that part of the world. Clark may or may not agree with that, but someone at his intellectual level and experience should be expected to know the importance of at least addressing the issue.

Update (10/3/03): A reader points us to this interview in Rolling Stone where General Clark elaborates on what his friendship with members of the IDF really means:

"Israel has a unique problem. It is beset by nations that want to destroy it. Any nation that is under attack has the right to self-defense. And the right to self-defense is the right to strike pre-emptively to disrupt the threat. Therefore I totally support Israel's effort to go after these terrorists before they can strike Israel."

Like most of his fellow Democrats, Clark goes even further right than the Bush administration, endorsing the illegal building of an Israeli "security fence" on occupied Palestinian territory as "very important."

He does, however, acknowledge that Palestinians are human beings. "They're human beings like everyone else, and they've gotta be given a chance," Clark says. That's so very generous of you General Clark.

Posted by editor at October 3, 2003 02:03 PM



Clinton packs house, urges world to unite

Monday, May 19, 2003


TRENTON - Former President Bill Clinton urged a packed house last night at the War Memorial here to be mindful of the country's security and to act decisively to neutralize threats, but to invest just as aggressively in friendship and cooperation with other countries.

"The major challenge of this era, of the next two decades, is to move the world to a more integrated community with shared values, benefits and responsibilities," he said. "We do better when we work together."

He called North Korea "our biggest problem with weapons of mass destruction," and said the standoff should be handled diplomatically by "moving in now and making a deal - a final deal."

Clinton was the featured speaker at a fund-raiser on behalf of Greenwood House, a nursing home and assisted living center for the Jewish elderly in Ewing.

The audience, much of it clearly unhappy with the policies of the Bush White House, greeted Clinton warmly. The capacity crowd in the 1,800-seat Patriots Theater rose to its feet when he stepped on the stage, cheering loudly.

Clinton did not disappoint.

"I think this tax cut's nuts," he said of President George Bush's tax cutting plan approved last week in the Senate.

He also was critical of what he suggested was an increasingly unilateral approach taken by the Bush administration.

People waiting outside the War Memorial before the speech said they were eager to hear his views on world events and foreign policy during these tense times.

"He is the most charismatic - and intelligent - president in the last 38 years," said Nick Skroumbelos, an accountant from Lawrence. "I'm hoping to hear about current events."

"I'm here to hear his opinions on foreign policy. I'm scared. There is such a difference with a conciliatory approach and working to bring people together," said Barbara Strickarz of Florence, an administrator for a school for children with special needs in Morganville. "Now the U.S. has become the dictator of what policy will be and we're defining people who are different as evil."

Clinton remains keenly interested in foreign and domestic policy, according to press accounts of his many speeches over the last several months, and has taken the Bush Administration to task on several occasions.

In calling for cooperation, however, he was careful to temper his criticism with some words of sympathy and agreement.

He said George Bush was compelled to accept the warnings from intelligence officials that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He said the country must continue to ferret out al-Qaida leaders.

"They are a worthy though dark adversary," he said, adding, "I hope this would never be a partisan political issue."

However, he urged the crowd to speak out against policies that he said tear the social fabric, such as the elimination of funding for police on the streets and after-school programs.

"It's crazy to say that because we were attacked two years ago, that you're not a patriot for wanting to debate," he said, adding later, "If you check your brain at the door, then you've given the terrorists a victory."

Both Clinton and his wife Hillary, the junior senator from New York, have been hard at work on their memoirs in recent months.

Clinton won the state in both the 1992 and 1996 elections, and his would-be successor, Vice President Al Gore, won New Jersey resoundingly in 2000.

Clinton noted the election results in New Jersey in 1992 and 1996 "showed I had the biggest improvement in my performance in any state."

This was his first appearance in the region since he campaigned here for Democratic candidates before the 2000 elections.

Gov. James E. McGreevey introduced him last night, remarking, "I believe at the end of a long day that William Jefferson Clinton will be marked as one of our great presidents."

An even more enthusiastic member of the audience then yelled from the balcony, "Bill Clinton for president," prompting the former president to remark, "I want to thank that fellow."

"Even better," he said, after a woman then hollered "Hillary Clinton for president."

Denise Siegel, chairwoman of fundraising for Greenwood House, called the event "marvelously successful - the money that's been raised is fantastic."

Siegel described the former president's speaking fee as "expensive," but would not say how much the organization had paid.

A consultant working on the fund-raiser said she expected last night's event, which also included a dinner for corporate and other large sponsors prior to the speech, to raise about $500,000 in gross revenues.

NOTE: Contact Tracey L. Regan at (609) 777-4465 or

Clinton Assails Bush at Commencement Talk

Bill Clinton Criticizes Bush for Spending More Time on Terror War Than on Domestic Concerns

The Associated Press

JACKSON, Miss. May 19, 2003 —

Former President Bill Clinton accused President Bush of spending more time fighting the war on terrorism than on domestic issues during a commencement speech at Tougaloo College.

"I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but we can't be forever strong abroad if we don't keep getting better at home," Clinton said Sunday to a crowd of about 8,000.

Clinton also criticized Bush's position on affirmative action and tax cuts just two days after the President formally kicked off his re-election campaign.

Clinton stayed for the entire three-hour ceremony and shook hands with each of the 144 graduates at the relatively obscure historically black college. But this private school of 800 students will also be the site of the Aug. 13 Democratic presidential debate.

Judging from the warm reception to his every blast of the Bush administration, Clinton had a lot of supporters in the crowd which included former Democratic governors of Mississippi, Ray Mabus and William Winter.

On the stage with Clinton were Governor Ronnie Musgrove, and U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., a Tougaloo graduate and a member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

"We Democrats in Congress miss you," Thompson said, referring to the Republican majority in both houses of Congress and the Democrats' inability to derail Bush's tax cut plan.

Clinton, who commands as much as $350,000 a speech, was speaking at Tougaloo for free.

Clinton's attack on the president comes as Bush who in the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll had an approval rating of 71 percent, down from 77 percent during the war in Iraq is drawing criticism from Democrats for his tax cut proposals and support for "race neutral alternatives" to affirmative action.

Clinton laughed long and heartily when student government president C.J. Lawrence assured the crowd that selecting Clinton was not an example of affirmative action. "Yes, Oprah Winfrey and Bill Cosby were also considered, but I assure you Bill Clinton was selected solely on his merit," Lawrence said, drawing a big round of applause.

Despite the laughter, Clinton spoke seriously about what he said is the need to show that America takes care of its citizens of all races and all income levels through affirmative action and after-school care programs.

Clinton suggested that Bush's priorities are fighting terrorism, not domestic issues.

The Bush administration, Clinton said, "is still focused on defeating terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and that's good, but not good enough. The power of our example is just as important as our military might."

Clinton also took aim at the growing budget deficit and Bush's tax cut proposals all issues that are being raised by the nine Democrats who are running for president in 2004. Sunday's crowd at Tougaloo made it plain who many of them would like to see in the White House.

"I think if you were to take a vote here, they'd vote for Bill Clinton if he was running again," said Jerry Keahey, class of '61.

Clinton, who sang along with the choir to "Lift Every Voice and Sing" and chatted at length with many of those around him on the podium, also took time to take a jab at Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss.

Lott lost his Senate Majority Leader position after his comment in December that the nation would have been better served if retiring Sen. Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948 when he ran on a segregationist platform.

Referring to the 134-year-old college's need to raise money to renovate its old buildings, Clinton suggested that Lott might want to help them raise money to make up for his remarks.

"Reach out, don't give up on anybody," Clinton said. "This is Sunday. Ask Lott to give you the money for the buildings. He said he was going to spend the rest of his life making up for the little trouble he had."

Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved



Maybe, says Hillary Clinton to 2008 run for presidency

November 27, 2003

Hillary Clinton has suggested that she may run for US president in 2008 but would stay out of the campaign for next year, in an interview with a German magazine released yesterday.

Asked by Bunte magazine why she was not standing in 2004, a race already well under way, the New York senator said she was happy with her job.

But people are disappointed she was not competing, she was told.

"I know. Well, perhaps I'll do it next time around," she replied.

The former First Lady to Bill Clinton has already repeatedly denied she was contemplating standing for the Democratic nomination for next year's election, although that has not stopped the speculation.

However, she is widely thought to hold ambitions for the 2008 race.

A Newsweek survey in September showed her to be a preferred choice for more Democratic voters than any other Democrat to stand against incumbent President George Bush.

In the interview, Mrs Clinton said her husband, who won two terms as president until 2000, remained her best adviser.

"It is actually a kind of job rotation. First, Bill focused on his career, now it's my turn. Bill supports me and gives me tips, he's my best adviser, as I tried to be for him when he was fulfilling political office."

She said she hoped the United States would one day have a female president but that it was up to women to show that they could do the job.


November 2003, pages 22-23


Special Report

Hail, Hail the Gang's All Here

By Richard H. Curtiss

The more one sees of General Wesley K. Clark, the more mysterious he becomes. He clearly is one of a kind, and everybody is quick to critique him—as long as it is off the record. He could become one of America's most brilliant presidential candidates, or he might just fall apart in frustration and confusion. Only time will tell.

Although the temptation to search for the key to his uniqueness is great, in fact he is so unusual that one can't decide where to begin. So let's just start from the beginning. His father, an Orthodox Jew, was one of a long line of rabbis. Unfortunately, Benjamin Kanne died when Clark was four years old.

He and his mother moved from Chicago to Little Rock, Arkansas, at which time she hid her son's Jewishness. His new stepfather was kind and considerate, and his mother changed his name from Kanne to Clark when her husband adopted him. Raised a Baptist, Wesley later converted to Catholicism.

Clark remembers that when he and his friends played Confederates and Yankees, the Chicago boy always was put on the Yankee team. And, he recalled ruefully, "the Confederates always won."

Whether or not this scarred him particularly, Clark was brilliant and let it show. He was appointed to West Point and, throughout his career there, was nearly always first in his class.

He loved debating and stayed on the debating team. A captain named Norman Schwarzkopf, later the Supreme Commander of Desert Storm, told Clark at the time that he should spend more time in team activities, whether in sports or other organized groups, rather than just starring in debates.

From the time he joined the Army, the clearly self-centered Clark loved to critique everything, ad nauseam. According to a Clinton administration official, "after talking to Clark for an hour, you had to take a Valium." Like the Energizer bunny he never ran down, and was always ready to re-analyze one more time what he did versus what he might have done.

Clark never forgave himself for not having a rifle at the ready when, in Vietnam, he suddenly found himself looking down the barrel of a Viet Cong soldier's gun. The Viet Cong enemy shot him four different times. Grievously wounded, Clark earned a Silver Star for leading his men even while lying on the ground. His physical rehabilitation included an entire year rebuilding his strength and endurance. Today he is as physically fit as he was at West Point and, whenever possible, he swims daily.

Upon completing West Point, Clark became a Rhodes Scholar, just as did former President Bill Clinton. And, just as Clinton used to recap each day committing to memory the names of everyone who might prove useful in the future, Clark recalled virtually everything he ever learned, which he could produce on demand.

Clark met his attractive wife, Gertrude Kingston, at a Navy party. As the spouse of a career officer on the fast track, she soon learned to move on demand: the couple has moved over 30 times. His wife, who is Roman Catholic and grew up in Brooklyn, can be feisty, but Clark knows the limits of a service wife, even in retirement. He was playing a brilliant round of golf when he suddenly stopped before finishing the round. "I promised to meet Gert to go to a movie," he explained, "so we'll have to postpone the rest of the game."

His announcement that he would be a candidate for president was delayed a day or two until his wife, who clearly did not relish the loss of privacy, reluctantly gave her okay.

As a decorated hero in combat, and with his academic brilliance, Clark also excelled as a general officer in shaping up U.S. soldiers—or, as the Army commercial might put it, teaching Army men to "be all they can be."

It is amazingly difficult, however, to find Army officers who will discuss Clark "on-the-record." Off-the-record they can be extremely caustic. One observed that Clark seems exceedingly eager to please, even to the point of saying things that he probably doesn't believe. Not naturally a hail-fellow-well-met person, he will act that way if it suits his purpose. Another associate described him as "an eager beaver and a perpetual Ôbrown nose.'" Other military colleagues say bluntly that some of Clark's ideas are "off the wall" or "make no sense." Clark himself says, "I stand up for what I believe is right."

In Kosovo Clark, who was determined to end that civil strife, showed extraordinary persistence. While he made serious enemies, on the other hand he prevailed in a war that was just, necessary and in the national interest.

Using "rank" when it served his purposes, Clark went right over the heads of others. He was however, himself, once reprimanded by a subordinate. When the Russians decided to seize an airport which was not part of NATO's game plan, Clark was prepared to stop the Russians in their tracks. A British officer, Lt. Gen. Michael Jackson, bluntly told Clark, "I am not going to start World War III for you!" The British officer prevailed and bloodshed was averted.

Some time later, William Cohen, the Clinton administration's Republican defense secretary, apparently devised a carefully thought-out plan to halt Clark's career. Cohen announced that Clark would be leaving his assignment as head of NATO forces in Europe two months earlier than planned. That, indeed, was the end of Clark's military career: for whatever reason, political influence was not brought to bear to avert his departure.

After his removal Richard Holbrook, the chief U.S. negotiator in Bosnia, tried to cheer up Clark by saying, "Wes, this is the best thing that could have happened to you. Because no one had heard of you until today. I'll help you get a book agent and recommend you to a speech bureau."

Holbrook, ironically, had been touted to be the secretary of state had Vice President Gore won the 2000 presential election. Perhaps he will soon have another chance.

Clark apparently had no fixed plans for the future. He probably hoped that, after the shock of Sept. 11, 2001, there would be a place for him in the war on terror. That, however, didn't happen.

Like many professional military officers—including current Secretary of State Colin Powell—Clark rarely expressed a preference for either the Republican or Democratic Party. Even a month before he opted to run for president, Clark still had not definitively cast his lot with either party. Clearly, this was a wrenching decision for him.

When he made it, however, he went all out—despite a last-minute bobble which probably will come back to haunt him. While traveling with four journalists in September, Clark said that he might have supported a war on Iraq. Only two other potential candidates, Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich, were clearly against the war. Thus, Clark's rationale for running—opposition to the war—disappeared even as he was on the way to his first appearance as a candidate.

The next day Clark's newly recruited handlers altered his message: that Clark would have sought more United Nations diplomatic leverage before attacking Iraq. The serious blunder based on inexperience will likely not be overlooked. On the other hand, many Democrats are desperately looking for a winner, and this dashing military hero looks exactly like what many Democrats are seeking.

In his maiden speech at the Citadel, a military school in Charleston, SC, Clark made it clear that he believed the administration had unfairly focused on whole classes of immigrants, for fear of a minority within them.

"Three million Muslims have come to this country from Asia and the Middle East," he said. "They didn't come because they were afraid of values. They came because they wanted to live under them."

On the eve of the first Democratic debate on Sept. 25, Clark and Dean were the most watched candidates in the 10-person field. Given that Clark would accept the nomination for either president or vice president, these two men are the ones to watch.

The central theme of the debate at New York's Pace College was the economy. Gephardt and Dean worried about protecting American workers. Some of the other debaters, by contrast, worried more about keeping the economy moving forward. As the newest entrant into the arena, Clark largely was left unscathed.

He may remain largely unscathed right through the campaign season and if someone else gets the presidential nomination, he'll still be a leading contender for vice president. Any campaign would welcome Clark's credentials. To paraphrase the old spiritual, "When the roll is called up yonder, Clark probably will be there."


With the entrance of Gen. Wesley K. Clark into the 2004 presidential race, all of the main cast of characters are in place and the campaign can begin seriously. When Clark announced his candidacy on Sept. 17 there was a major, but unspoken, proviso: Clark may not be expecting the nomination for president but he definitely hopes to win the vice presidency slot. Indeed, regardless of who wins the Democratic presidential nomination, Clark would be a serious vice presidential candidate .

The man to beat is former Vermont governor Dr. Howard Dean. So far he seems quite comfortable in the role of "target of opportunity" for every other presidential candidate. Dean was the only major candidate who opposed the President George W. Bush administration's Iraq war, with no ifs, ands or buts. The three major candidates—Sens. John Kerry (MA), Joseph Lieberman (CT) and House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt (MO)—all voted to support the war.

Dean has a huge leg up on his Democratic rivals, who also include Sen. John Edwards (SC); Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH); and Sen. Bob Graham (FL), former Sen. Carol Mosely Braun (IL), and New York clergyman and civil rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton. All are interesting but have serious strikes against them that almost certainly will winnow them out as the election season progresses.

Governor Dean is the most interesting by far. Despite the fact that his campaign is co-chaired by former AIPAC president Steve Grossman, and that Dean himself has described his commitment to Israel as "visceral," he suggested in early September that, in order to remain even-handed, the United States should not take sides in the Israeli-Palestine dispute. The other candidates, particularly Lieberman, immediately criticized Dean for not supporting Israel under all circumstances. But Dean basically has not backed off from his sensible proviso.

He has a particular interest in the Israel problem because his wife is Jewish. Lieberman, of course, has been a superhawk on Iraq and, along with his wife, is an Orthodox Jew. Dean, by contrast, has been a peacenik on the Middle East for many years—which is characteristic of his stance on all such matters.

While his father has long been a Republican, Dean himself joined the Democratic Party because he was unhappy with the Vietnam War. He worked assiduously to end that long and unhappy chapter in American history and has been a Democratic activist ever since.

After graduating from Yale, Dean worked briefly on Wall Street, then started volunteering at St. Vincent's Hospital in New York City. He soon realized that he was more interested in medicine than finance. After taking night classes in medicine, he enrolled in medical school.

There he met Judith Steinberg, his fellow student and future wife. Interestingly, Mrs. Dean is raising their son and daughter as Jews. Dean, raised an Episcopalian, now is a Congregationalist. None of this seems to have changed any of his liberal inclinations in any measurable way, however.

After medical school Dean moved to Vermont and opened a family practice. He also became increasingly active in local politics, ultimately becoming chairman of the Vermont Democratic Party in 1980. "Medicine trained me to treat patients in my practice," Dean has written. "Politics provided a forum to advocate for patients all over the state."

Dean was elected to the state legislature in 1982 and, four years later, to the part-time position of lieutenant governor, allowing him him to continue seeing his patients. He was attending a patient in 1985, in fact, when he learned of Gov. Richard A. Snelling's fatal heart attack. He quickly drove to Montpelier, where he was sworn in as governor. After completing Snelling's term, Dean was re-elected five times as governor.

As of this writing, very few Americans can even come up with the name of a likely Democratic presidential candidate. This undoubtedly will change in the next few months. Graham was first to bow out, in early October, and the prevalent view is that Edwards and Kucinich may soon run out of funding as well, leaving Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, Clark and Dean in the field. It is this writer's prediction that Lieberman, too, eventually will drop out, but that Clark will continue, assuming there are no skeletons rattling in his closet.

From the standpoint of people hoping to see a presidential candidate emerge willing to deal seriously and sincerely with the Palestinian problem, the final choice probably will be between Bush and Dean. One thing is certain, it's going to be a very tight race—increasingly a rule of thumb these days.

There is one final surprise that may be in the offing. If a Bush loss becomes a serious possibility, Hillary Clinton may have second thoughts and decide to join the pack seeking the 2004 Democratic nomination. While a remote possibility, it's not totally out of the question. Given the fact that George W. Bush seemed invincible only a year ago and now finds himself in ever-growing electoral peril, nothing can be ruled out in the year ahead.

Thus, once again, Muslim- and Arab-Americans who work for a bloc vote may well produce the winning candidate, as they did in 2000. Americans who care will use that vote very wisely.

Richard H. Curtiss is executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.


Morris: Clintons replacing Democratic Party

With Howard Dean on rise they fear losing control of purse strings

Posted: November 25, 2003

© 2003

Fearing Howard Dean is poised to capture the Democratic presidential nomination, Bill and Hillary Clinton are maneuvering to replace the party with a new group called "Americans Coming Together," claims former adviser Dick Morris in a New York Post column.

The group – launched with two $10 million donations from financier George Soros and Peter B. Lewis, chairman of the Progressive Corporation – is one-third of the way toward its goal of raising $94 million to finance a massive campaign against Bush, says Morris, who was President Clinton's chief political strategist during the 1996 campaign.

Hillary Clinton's connection to Americans Coming Together, despite campaign-finance laws, is "paper-thin," said Morris, with Harold Ickes, President Clinton's former deputy chief of staff, working closely with Soros to fund it.

"Ickes is about as independent of Hillary as Bill is," he said. "He is her chief adviser. His photo graces her memoirs. He was her key operative in securing the Senate seat in New York. To pretend that anything he would do is independent of Hillary is like saying that the left hand is independent of the right hand."

Morris believes the Clintons' move to circumvent the Democratic Party is to provide a "lifeboat" for the likelihood that when Dean takes the prize, he will fire their close associate, Terry McAuliffe, and take control of the Democratic National Committee.

"Dean seems destined to win the nomination and with it control of the party," Morris said. "So the Clintons are moving out."

Morris said when that happens, "no longer will its coffers be available to the Clintons to use as their private fund, channeling donations to candidates and causes they favor or that favor them."

So, before the handover, he said, "they are working on stripping the Democratic Party of its central role and giving it to the more pliant Americans Working Together, instead."

The Clintons' attempts to sidetrack Dean have failed, with Wesley Clark's campaign collapsing and John Kerry's campaign staff quitting, Morris said.

He notes the Democratic Party, limited to donations of $2,000 per person by the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, has been unable to raise enough hard money for a national campaign.

That means it essentially is ceding its main role to Americans Coming Together, Morris said.

Republicans are raising twice as much as Democrats are in hard money, $158 million to $66.5 million for the Democrats.

Americans Coming Together supposedly is an independent campaign committee, as required by law. But Morris contends Ickes has not honored the boundaries between supposedly independent expenditures and political campaigns required by the Federal Elections Commission.

"I almost fell through the floor of the White House early in 1996 when I attended a meeting chaired by Ickes of representatives of the political action committees of major American labor unions," he said. "Gathered in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, they each recounted their plans for 'independent expenditures' against the Republicans in the coming election campaign. The meeting, quite illegal in many ways, represented exactly the kind of co-ordination forbidden by the campaign-finance laws."


Overflow crowd turns out to meet Presidential hopeful Howard Dean

by Robert Raketty

Staff Writer

An overflow crowd of over 1,200 packed into Seattle's Town Hall on Wednesday, May 14, to get a glimpse of former Vermont governor Howard Dean. The medical doctor-turned governor-turned Presidential candidate received numerous standing ovations for his attacks on the Bush White House and his plan for America.

Dean says he represents "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." He continued by berating members of his own Party.

"I think the folks in Washington [D.C.] made a fundamental mistake in thinking we could beat George Bush by being ÔBush- lite'," he said. "I've talked to Democrats all across the country and I've found that sometimes they are almost as angry with the Democratic Party as they are with the Republican Party. If you make me the Democratic nominee, I'll make you proud to be Democrats again."

He touted his plan to balance the budget and his health-care plan to provide all Americans with affordable coverage. Dean questioned Bush's leadership on these issues.

"No Republican has balanced the budget in 34 years. If you want a balanced budget, you better elect a Democrat," he warned. "Mr. Bush will you please step down so we can have a balanced budget.

"We ought to be fighting for healthcare for every American. I would like Bush to explain why we don't have what those other countries have."

He promised to introduce a renewable energy policy utilizing ethanol-based fuels and pledged to reduce emissions by 60 percent over the next five decades.

"We are going to save the environment by getting rid of this President," he said.

He wasn't entirely serious; his keen sense of humor wasn't lost on the audience. "I served so long [referring to his 11 years as governor of Vermont] that I was governor during both Bush recessions," said Dean. "Mr. Bush will you please step down so we can have a balanced budget."

On the occupation of Iraq, "If he thinks our troops are going to be out of there in 18 months, he's forgotten something he smoked at Harvard." He went on to say that if we wanted to defeat Saddam earlier, we should have sent Bush's economic advisors to Iraq.

Dean is most well known to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender community for shepherding civil unions through a political mine field and into law in 2000. He has long been publicly supportive of the LGBT community. He opposes the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and Bush's Faith-Based Initiative. He also supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and federal Hate Crime legislation.

Many notable members of the LGBT community where in attendance Wednesday. Among them: Ellen Ferguson, Robert Eichler, Dave Horn, Tim Bradbury, Greg Rodriguez, Scott Hillman and Grethe Cammermeyer.

He also criticized Bush for his support of U.S. Senator Rick Santorum who compared gays to incest or polygamy.

"I want our country back," said Dean." I'm tired of being divided; I'm tired of being divided by gender. I'm tired of being divided by income, by sexual orientation, by religion."

He chided Bush for using the term "quotas" in his remarks about University of Michigan's admissions policies.

"Quota is a race-loaded word. And it is designed deliberately to appeal to people who are afraid they will lose their jobs to a minority," he said.

Although Dean has raised far less than his counterparts, Washingtonians have given more to his campaign than any other candidate. He also is receiving some strong backing from influential Washington state democrats. Former Gov. Booth Gardner and Paul Berendt, the State Democratic Party Chair, told the Seattle Gay News that they both support Dean for the Democratic nomination.

Dean ended his speech by with a plea for the audience to get involved in his campaign. He told the crowd they had the power to make America great again. In a booming voice from the stage, Dean shouted, "You have the power! You have the power!"

Howard Dean Warns of Depression, Bush Mismanagement

by: Wire Services


From Quad-City Times

by Ed Tibbetts

The United States will go into an economic depression if President Bush is re-elected, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said in Davenport Iowa on Sunday.

He said the president has divided the country along race, income and gender lines, that he’s botched the job of defending the country and lost millions of jobs, while giving away billions of tax dollars to wealthy friends.

But as much as Dean, one of the nine people running for the 2004 Democratic nomination for the presidency, ripped into the Bush administration on a slew of domestic issues during the second “Hear it from the Heartland” forum, it was the passion he unleashed on the president’s foreign policy that brought 200 Democrats at Davenport’s RiverCenter to their feet Sunday.

Dean, his voice rising, accused the administration of failing to deliver money to local police agencies to help them guard against terrorist attacks, and of talking tough on homeland security but doing little about it.

Instead, he said, the administration took the country to war against Iraq and bullied others along the way.

“This president has used humiliation as a weapon — not only against our enemies, but also against our friends,” Dean said. And he warned on Iraq: “Every day that goes by we are seen as occupiers and not liberators.”

With the major fighting done in Iraq, much of the political dialogue in the presidential race has turned to domestic matters. But Dean’s intensity on foreign policy issues appears to be what still arouses crowds in Iowa, where Democratic activists have been virulently anti-war.

“His passion and energy comes through,” said David Loebsack, a political science professor at Cornell College in Mount Vernon, Iowa, who attended the forum.

The Heartland forums, sponsored by U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, are a series of nine monthly events aimed at showcasing the presidential hopefuls in front of Iowa activists. The 90-minute RiverCenter event was aired on C-SPAN.

For the most part, Dean focused his energy on President Bush, only making indirect references to his rivals. Even later, when asked to expand on implicit criticism of their views on the hog-confinement issue, he declined.

However, he reserved no passion in his criticism of the Bush administration, complaining that he has surrounded himself with “ideologues.”

With the invitation-only audience of activist Democrats, though, Dean’s red-meat rhetoric was well received. Harry Seelman, an 81-year-old farmer from Oxford, Iowa, said he is neutral but that Dean is high on his list of presidential candidates. “He has Democratic values,” he said.

Dean complained that 2.5 million jobs had been lost since the Bush administration took power. “If we re-elect this president, we’ll be in a depression,” he said.

The administration, and Republicans, have said that had the tax cut not been passed, the nation’s recession would have been far worse.

Activists who already had seen Dean were familiar with most of what he said. He has been to the state about three dozen times. That did not diminish their enthusiasm, however.

A chanting crowd greeted him at Mac’s Tavern after the forum, where Dean waded through the crowded tavern, shaking hands and posing for pictures. Harkin, who said he is neutral in the race thus far, said Dean connected with the audience and did well in explaining his accomplishments as the governor of Vermont.

For more information visit:

( BW)(NY-TVSPY.COM) Presidential Candidate Howard Dean Discusses Using Broadband With

    Business Editors

    NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 5, 2003--Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's presidential campaign is using the latest Internet technology to reach voters, chronicle his campaign, and organize potential supporters in an unprecedented manner.
    Dean discussed the use of new technology for organizing and communicating in an interview with, a service of Vault, Inc.
    In May, Dean's campaign launched Howard Dean TV on the Web utilizing the latest broadband technology. Through his official web site, voters can watch speeches, Q&As and other video of Dean along the campaign trial that they would not otherwise be able to see.
    "It is serving as direct communication to the voters," Dean said. "It bypasses a lot of the media filter that we have. The other thing it does is enable us to get in touch with people who really passionately care about the campaign."
    TVSpy's full interview with Howard Dean can be found on at:
    To read more columns about technology and TV, as well as the latest industry news, go to TVSpy:
    This is the first such use of broadband technology in a Presidential contest. Howard Dean TV is powered by Wavexpress using TVTonic technology. Users can easily down load DVD-quality video from Dean's official site at

    About, a service of Vault, Inc., is the leading online destination for television professionals worldwide. TVSpy's mission is to connect job seekers, professionals, vendors and employers with "insider" content, community and business services. Its daily newsletter, ShopTalk, unites all television professionals in a forum unlike any other. "Shop Talk" was founded in 1983 by the legendary talent scout Don Fitzpatrick, currently TVSpy's Editor-in-Chief and Chairman.

    About Vault, Inc.

    Vault, Inc. is the leading media company focused on careers. Vault is celebrated for its online resource,, which offers recruiting services for employers, detailed "insider" information on over 3,000 companies and 70 industries, as well as the much-praised Electronic WaterCooler(TM), the Internet's first-ever network of expert-moderated message boards for professionals. Offline, Vault offers over 80 nationally distributed print books, a syndicated newspaper column, and a personalized resume review and career coaching service for job seekers. Vault was founded in 1997 by Hussam Hamadeh, Samer Hamadeh, and Mark Oldman.



Democratic Candidates Seek Gay Vote

By Associated Press

May 12, 2003

ATLANTA -- During his keynote address at a black-tie dinner here Saturday, Sen. John Edwards voiced his support for adoptions by gay parents.

The North Carolina senator, one of nine Democrats seeking the party's presidential nomination, isn't the only one courting gay voters. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean has touted a law he signed allowing civil unions for gays and lesbians. U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, a decorated Vietnam veteran, makes has said gays should be allowed to serve in the military.

Bill Clinton made history in 1992 by openly courting gay voters en route to the White House. Eleven years later, the courting of gay voters is under way like never before. "In a crowded race or a close race, an energized and mobilized constituency can make a real difference," said Dave Noble, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, a group that promotes the agenda of gays within the party.

"Right now, we've got so many different candidates going after the community, and there's not one candidate the community has settled upon."

Exit polls from the 2000 presidential election showed that 4 percent of voters were gay and that close to three-quarters of them voted for Democrat Al Gore. In the 2004 Democratic primaries, their influence could prove pivotal, activists argue.

Several candidates for next year's race, including Edwards, have hired staff members to advise them on gay issues. U.S. Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri has said his daughter, Chrissy, will be an ambassador to gay groups. She is a lesbian.

"The gay community has become one of the constituencies you have to meet to be a viable Democrat," said Steve Elmendorf, a top adviser to Gephardt's campaign.

That was clear during this month's Democratic debate in South Carolina. The nine candidates each touted their gay-rights credentials and universally condemned anti-sodomy laws as an invasion of privacy.

Six of the nine candidates have endorsed the idea of civil unions, though most won't go as far to say they support gay marriage.

Edwards spoke Saturday night in Atlanta at an event held by the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay-rights group. His speech also included calls for greater workplace protections and stepped-up efforts to find an AIDS vaccine.

"I was raised to believe in an America that embraces everybody," Edwards said.

When speaking of adoptions by gay parents, Edwards said, "In a world where far too many children are neglected or unwanted, we need to encourage responsible, loving adults to raise children, which is why I support the rights of gays and lesbians to adopt children."

Edwards did not explicitly address civil unions, though he apparently was referring to the subject when he said "not everyone of us will agree on every single issue."

During his 1998 Senate race, Edwards said he was opposed to gay marriage. Although he does not object to states' recognizing civil unions, he continues to have reservations about both gay marriage and civil unions, said Jennifer Palmieri, Edwards' campaign spokeswoman.

"It's an issue he thinks the country -- and North Carolina -- is not ready for," Palmieri said.

But his efforts to court the gay community could work against him in North Carolina, particularly if he ends up seeking re-election to the Senate in 2004.

If Edwards runs for the Senate, "you can sure this will be brought up," said Thad Beyle, a political science professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

"It gives some ammunition to people. I think it's probably less of a big deal that it used to be, but there are still people here who are uncomfortable with this. They see homosexuality as a sin."

In a similar vein, the Democratic presidential nominee risks losing some support among swing voters in the South, analysts say. But campaign strategists downplay that potential.

"It's overrated as a general election liability," said Elmendorf, the Gephardt adviser. "In 1992, Clinton got people past the notion that if you're pro-gay rights, it will kill you in the South."

Copyright © 2003, The Associated Press



Democrat Gephardt joins ranks of 2004 US presidential hopefuls

Sunday, 05-Jan-2003 12:10AM PST Story from AFP / Maxim Kniazkov

Copyright 2003 by Agence France-Presse

WASHINGTON, Jan 4, 2003  (AFP) - The field of Democratic presidential hopefuls got more crowded Saturday, when Congressman Richard Gephardt of Missouri announced his intention to run for president in 2004, promising to lead the country to "a safer, more secure and more prosperous future."

The 61-year-old veteran Democrat from a working-class suburb of St. Louis, who served as minority leader in the House of Representatives for much of the last session of Congress, said he will file papers with the Federal Election Commission Monday to establish a presidential exploratory committee.

"This exploratory effort will mark my intention to seek the Democratic nomination for president in 2004," said Gephardt, the son of a milk truck driver who worked his way through law school.

Exploratory committees usually serve as fundraising vehicles for candidates for US political offices, allowing them to gauge the depth of their public support before officially throwing themselves into battle.

In making the announcement, Gephardt joins a fast-growing group of other Democratic presidential hopefuls who have announced the formation of their exploratory committees in a bid to test the waters ahead of 2004.

It includes Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina, Vermont Governor Howard Dean, and the Reverend Al Sharpton, a New York civil rights leader.

Democratic Senators Bob Graham of Florida and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut have said they are also considering a 2004 run, while outgoing Senate Democratic Majority Leader Thomas Daschle is seen as yet another likely candidate.

Curiously, according to a recent CNN/Time magazine opinion poll, 30 percent of Democratic voters -- more than twice as many as for top declared contenders - give their preference to former first lady Hillary Clinton, who has repeatedly denied any presidential ambitions.

"I look forward to challenging President Bush and offering a distinctive choice and different direction for our domestic, economic and national security policies -- a difference that will lead to a safer, more secure and more prosperous future for all Americans," Gephardt said in the statement.

He argued that on nearly every issue -- from national security to the economy to health care -- President George W. Bush was leading the country either down the wrong path or not leading at all.

"Too many unmet promises and too much empty rhetoric has left us a nation unsure of our own economic security and still vulnerable here at home to the threats we faced over a year ago on September 11th," Gephardt said.

He said he would offer "a bold set of new prescriptions" to address the problems, but provided no specifics.

White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan declined to comment on Gephardt's announcement, but strongly denied the president's agenda was faltering or stalled.

"The president is focused on uniting the American people behind the goals of winning the war on terrorism and protecting our homeland as well as ensuring our economic security," Buchan told AFP. "And we are making tremendous progress on all of those goals."

Gephardt made his first attempt to run for president in 1988, but was defeated in the primaries by then-Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis.

His congressional career, marked by pragmatic compromises and calculated turnarounds, spans more than 26 years.

Closely tied to organized labor, Gephardt has often displeased his Democratic colleagues by taking a largely protectionist stance of foreign trade and supporting tax cuts.

He led the Democratic opposition to US participation in the 1991 Gulf War, but played a key role last year in securing passage of a resolution sanctioning use of force against Iraq to ensure its disarmament.

Gephardt served as the leader in the House Democrats since 1989 until November, when he gave up the leadership post following Democratic electoral setbacks in both the House and Senate.



Gephardt touts plan for health care

Presidential hopeful says businesses and economy would gain

by Beth Fount
The Associated Press

San Francisco - Democratic presidential candidate Dick Gephardt brought his health care reform plan to Northern California on friday, casting his efforts to offer broadbased health coverage as a way to boost the sagging economy and bring relief to employers struggling with the rising cost of providing insurance to workers.

"My plan would stimulate the economy to a far greater degree than the Bush tax and economic plans," said Gephardt, appearing with House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi at the Pacific Stock Exchange. "It solves a major social problem we have in this country, and it stimulates the economy n a much more forthright and effective way."

The centerpiece of Gephardt's plan is a refundable tax credit worth 60 percent of an employer's share of health care costs. Currently, employers can get tax deductions covering about 30 percent of health care costs.

State and local governments would be eligible for the credit as well, which Gephardt said would ease the budget crunch. He estimated his plan would return about 422 billion to the state of California over three years.

The plan, estimated to cost as much as $247 billion per year, would be financed by repealing tax cuts championed by President Bush.

Gephardt, an ally of organized labor throughout his career used the appearance to showcase how his plan would aid employers. Three small-business owners, all picking up some or all of the costs of their employees' health insurance, praised the plan as a way to help their businesses be more competitive in the marketplace.

Scott Hauge, who employs 31 people in a small insurance company, said he would use the savings to extend coverage to his employees' families, which he currently does not do.

"I think a lot of business owners would do that," he said,"or reinvest in their business, or maybe give the increases to employees."

Absent from the panel were representatives of major corporations, but Gephardt said several executives had given his plan positive reviews.

Other candidates in the field have offered health care plans, but none as ambitious or as costly as Gephardt's. Former Vermont gov. Howard Dean, who has been working hard to capture some of the most liberal Democratic Party voters for whom health care is a central issue, dismissed Gephardt's plan in a recent interview.

"Dick's plan won't pass," he said flatly. "It's too expensive."

Rob Stutzman, a spokesman for the California Republican party, echoed that view.

"Three days after President Bush provided tax relief to American, Mr. Gephardt is still declaring he wants to impose a $2 trillion tax increase upon Americans," he said.

Gephardt so far has resisted those criticisms, continuing to make health care the centerpiece of his campaign.

"Elections need to be about big choices," he said. "If they're not about big choices, I don't see how we win."



Presidential Candidates Woo Iowa Union Members

Seven of Nine Democrats Bash Bush Tax Cut Plan

May 19, 2003

DES MOINES -- More than 900 union members of AFSCME showed up from across Iowa Saturday to check out the Democratic field for President.

Seven of the nine Democrats who are running appeared in Des Moines at a forum sponsored by AFSCME, a union representing government employees. Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman were unable to attend, but Kerry participated by satellite and Lieberman sent a videotaped message.

AFSCME workers said they were looking for the candidate who would best address their concerns.

"Mostly what everybody wants is better health care and wages," said union member Jesse Moldrow. They weren't disappointed.

"Not only do we need universal health care, we need to give every American the right to health care," said Rev. Al Sharpton.

"The plan I have will cover every single person with half the Bush tax cut," said former governor Howard Dean.

The candidates also ripped President's Bush's tax cuts. "The President's economic policy is a failure. It's made a mess of this economy," said Congressman Richard Gephardt of Missouri.

"They, the Republicans and George Bush, they honor wealth. We honor the work that produces wealth," said North Carolina Senator John Edwards.

Thirty union members from Iowa watched the event and gave the highest rating to Dennis Kucinich, closely followed by Sharpton,

Carol Mosely-Braun and Gephardt. The rating was taken before Senators Kerry and Lieberman appeared on video screens.


Candidate, Pelosi swap praise

The Associate Press

San Francisco - Presidential candidate Dick Gephardt made a campaign stop Friday with the woman who succeeded him as House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi. In the heart of Pelosi's own congressional district.

Appearing with Pelosi on a panel at the Pacific Stock Exchange, Gephardt praised her performance in the job he held for 13 years.

"She's an outstanding leader. She performs at a very high level every day," Gephardt aid. "I know that everyone in this community is very proud of her service and leadership in the Congress. It is extraordinary on a daily basis."

For her part, Pelosi said she was happy to be actively campaigning for Gephardt.

"I know Dick Gephardt is ready to govern," she said, "by dint of his experience, his judgment, and his knowledge of the entire country. He nows the policy, he knows the possibilities of government, and he knows the politics. He can get the job done."

But Pelosi was quick to ad that she could get behind any number of other Democrats in the field.

"All of our Democratic candidates are excellent and any one of them would be better for California, and for our country, than the current president," she said.



Remarks By Al Gore As Prepared for Delivery Constitution Hall in Washington, DC.

Sunday 09 November 2003

Thank you, Lisa, for that warm and generous introduction. Thank you Zack, and thank you all for coming here today

I want to thank the American Constitution Society for co-sponsoring today’s event, and for their hard work and dedication in defending our most basic public values.

And I am especially grateful to, not only for co-sponsoring this event, but also for using 21st Century techniques to breathe new life into our democracy.

For my part, I’m just a “recovering politician” – but I truly believe that some of the issues most important to America’s future are ones that all of us should be dealing with.

And perhaps the most important of these issues is the one I want to talk about today: the true relationship between Freedom and Security.

So it seems to me that the logical place to start the discussion is with an accounting of exactly what has happened to civil liberties and security since the vicious attacks against America of September 11, 2001 – and it’s important to note at the outset that the Administration and the Congress have brought about many beneficial and needed improvements to make law enforcement and intelligence community efforts more effective against potential terrorists.

But a lot of other changes have taken place that a lot of people don’t know about and that come as unwelcome surprises. For example, for the first time in our history, American citizens have been seized by the executive branch of government and put in prison without being charged with a crime, without having the right to a trial, without being able to see a lawyer, and without even being able to contact their families.

President Bush is claiming the unilateral right to do that to any American citizen he believes is an “enemy combatant.” Those are the magic words. If the President alone decides that those two words accurately describe someone, then that person can be immediately locked up and held incommunicado for as long as the President wants, with no court having the right to determine whether the facts actually justify his imprisonment.

Now if the President makes a mistake, or is given faulty information by somebody working for him, and locks up the wrong person, then it’s almost impossible for that person to prove his innocence – because he can’t talk to a lawyer or his family or anyone else and he doesn’t even have the right to know what specific crime he is accused of committing. So a constitutional right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness that we used to think of in an old-fashioned way as “inalienable” can now be instantly stripped from any American by the President with no meaningful review by any other branch of government.

How do we feel about that? Is that OK?

Here’s another recent change in our civil liberties: Now, if it wants to, the federal government has the right to monitor every website you go to on the internet, keep a list of everyone you send email to or receive email from and everyone who you call on the telephone or who calls you – and they don’t even have to show probable cause that you’ve done anything wrong. Nor do they ever have to report to any court on what they’re doing with the information. Moreover, there are precious few safeguards to keep them from reading the content of all your email.

Everybody fine with that?

If so, what about this next change?

For America’s first 212 years, it used to be that if the police wanted to search your house, they had to be able to convince an independent judge to give them a search warrant and then (with rare exceptions) they had to go bang on your door and yell, “Open up!” Then, if you didn’t quickly open up, they could knock the door down. Also, if they seized anything, they had to leave a list explaining what they had taken. That way, if it was all a terrible mistake (as it sometimes is) you could go and get your stuff back.

But that’s all changed now. Starting two years ago, federal agents were given broad new statutory authority by the Patriot Act to “sneak and peak” in non-terrorism cases. They can secretly enter your home with no warning – whether you are there or not – and they can wait for months before telling you they were there. And it doesn’t have to have any relationship to terrorism whatsoever. It applies to any garden-variety crime. And the new law makes it very easy to get around the need for a traditional warrant -- simply by saying that searching your house might have some connection (even a remote one) to the investigation of some agent of a foreign power. Then they can go to another court, a secret court, that more or less has to give them a warrant whenever they ask.

Three weeks ago, in a speech at FBI Headquarters, President Bush went even further and formally proposed that the Attorney General be allowed to authorize subpoenas by administrative order, without the need for a warrant from any court.

What about the right to consult a lawyer if you’re arrested? Is that important?

Attorney General Ashcroft has issued regulations authorizing the secret monitoring of attorney-client conversations on his say-so alone; bypassing procedures for obtaining prior judicial review for such monitoring in the rare instances when it was permitted in the past. Now, whoever is in custody has to assume that the government is always listening to consultations between them and their lawyers.

Does it matter if the government listens in on everything you say to your lawyer? Is that Ok?

Or, to take another change -- and thanks to the librarians, more people know about this one -- the FBI now has the right to go into any library and ask for the records of everybody who has used the library and get a list of who is reading what. Similarly, the FBI can demand all the records of banks, colleges, hotels, hospitals, credit-card companies, and many more kinds of companies. And these changes are only the beginning. Just last week, Attorney General Ashcroft issued brand new guidelines permitting FBI agents to run credit checks and background checks and gather other information about anyone who is “of investigatory interest,” - meaning anyone the agent thinks is suspicious - without any evidence of criminal behavior.

So, is that fine with everyone?

Listen to the way Israel’s highest court dealt with a similar question when, in 1999, it was asked to balance due process rights against dire threats to the security of its people:

“This is the destiny of democracy, as not all means are acceptable to it, and not all practices employed by its enemies are open before it. Although a democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back, it nonetheless has the upper hand. Preserving the Rule of Law and recognition of an individual’s liberty constitutes an important component in its understanding of security. At the end of the day they (add to) its strength.”

I want to challenge the Bush Administration’s implicit assumption that we have to give up many of our traditional freedoms in order to be safe from terrorists.

Because it is simply not true.

In fact, in my opinion, it makes no more sense to launch an assault on our civil liberties as the best way to get at terrorists than it did to launch an invasion of Iraq as the best way to get at Osama Bin Laden.

In both cases, the Administration has attacked the wrong target.

In both cases they have recklessly put our country in grave and unnecessary danger, while avoiding and neglecting obvious and much more important challenges that would actually help to protect the country.

In both cases, the administration has fostered false impressions and misled the nation with superficial, emotional and manipulative presentations that are not worthy of American Democracy.

In both cases they have exploited public fears for partisan political gain and postured themselves as bold defenders of our country while actually weakening not strengthening America.

In both cases, they have used unprecedented secrecy and deception in order to avoid accountability to the Congress, the Courts, the press and the people.

Indeed, this Administration has turned the fundamental presumption of our democracy on its head. A government of and for the people is supposed to be generally open to public scrutiny by the people -- while the private information of the people themselves should be routinely protected from government intrusion.

But instead, this Administration is seeking to conduct its work in secret even as it demands broad unfettered access to personal information about American citizens. Under the rubric of protecting national security, they have obtained new powers to gather information from citizens and to keep it secret. Yet at the same time they themselves refuse to disclose information that is highly relevant to the war against terrorism.

They are even arrogantly refusing to provide information about 9/11 that is in their possession to the 9/11 Commission – the lawful investigative body charged with examining not only the performance of the Bush Administration, but also the actions of the prior Administration in which I served. The whole point is to learn all we can about preventing future terrorist attacks,

Two days ago, the Commission was forced to issue a subpoena to the Pentagon, which has – disgracefully – put Secretary Rumsfeld’s desire to avoid embarrassment ahead of the nation’s need to learn how we can best avoid future terrorist attacks. The Commission also served notice that it will issue a subpoena to the White House if the President continues to withhold information essential to the investigation.

And the White House is also refusing to respond to repeated bipartisan Congressional requests for information about 9/11 – even though the Congress is simply exercising its Constitutional oversight authority. In the words of Senator McCain, “Excessive administration secrecy on issues related to the September 11 attacks feeds conspiracy theories and reduces the public’s confidence in government.”

In a revealing move, just three days ago, the White House asked the Republican leadership of the Senate to shut down the Intelligence Committee’s investigation of 9/11 based on a trivial political dispute. Apparently the President is anxious to keep the Congress from seeing what are said to have been clear, strong and explicit warnings directly to him a few weeks before 9/11 that terrorists were planning to hijack commercial airliners and use them to attack us.

Astonishingly, the Republican Senate leadership quickly complied with the President’s request. Such obedience and complicity in what looks like a cover-up from the majority party in a separate and supposedly co-equal branch of government makes it seem like a very long time ago when a Republican Attorney General and his deputy resigned rather than comply with an order to fire the special prosecutor investigating Richard Nixon.

In an even more brazen move, more than two years after they rounded up over 1,200 individuals of Arab descent, they still refuse to release the names of the individuals they detained, even though virtually every one of those arrested has been "cleared" by the FBI of any connection to terrorism and there is absolutely no national security justification for keeping the names secret. Yet at the same time, White House officials themselves leaked the name of a CIA operative serving the country, in clear violation of the law, in an effort to get at her husband, who had angered them by disclosing that the President had relied on forged evidence in his state of the union address as part of his effort to convince the country that Saddam Hussein was on the verge of building nuclear weapons.

And even as they claim the right to see the private bank records of every American, they are adopting a new policy on the Freedom of Information Act that actively encourages federal agencies to fully consider all potential reasons for non-disclosure regardless of whether the disclosure would be harmful. In other words, the federal government will now actively resist complying with ANY request for information.

Moreover, they have established a new exemption that enables them to refuse the release to the press and the public of important health, safety and environmental information submitted to the government by businesses – merely by calling it “critical infrastructure.”

By closely guarding information about their own behavior, they are dismantling a fundamental element of our system of checks and balances. Because so long as the government’s actions are secret, they cannot be held accountable. A government for the people and by the people must be transparent to the people.

The administration is justifying the collection of all this information by saying in effect that it will make us safer to have it. But it is not the kind of information that would have been of much help in preventing 9/11. However, there was in fact a great deal of specific information that WAS available prior to 9/11 that probably could have been used to prevent the tragedy. A recent analysis by the Merkle foundation, (working with data from a software company that received venture capital from a CIA-sponsored firm) demonstrates this point in a startling way:

“In late August 2001, Nawaq Alhamzi and Khalid Al-Midhar bought tickets to fly on American Airlines Flight 77 (which was flown into the Pentagon). They bought the tickets using their real names. Both names were then on a State Department/INS watch list called TIPOFF. Both men were sought by the FBI and CIA as suspected terrorists, in part because they had been observed at a terrorist meeting in Malaysia.

These two passenger names would have been exact matches when checked against the TIPOFF list. But that would only have been the first step. Further data checks could then have begun.

Checking for common addresses (address information is widely available, including on the internet), analysts would have discovered that Salem Al-Hazmi (who also bought a seat on American 77) used the same address as Nawaq Alhazmi. More importantly, they could have discovered that Mohamed Atta (American 11, North Tower of the World Trade Center) and Marwan Al-Shehhi (United 175, South Tower of the World Trade Center) used the same address as Khalid Al-Midhar.

Checking for identical frequent flier numbers, analysts would have discovered that Majed Moqed (American 77) used the same number as Al-Midhar.

With Mohamed Atta now also identified as a possible associate of the wanted terrorist, Al-Midhar, analysts could have added Atta’s phone numbers (also publicly available information) to their checklist. By doing so they would have identified five other hijackers (Fayez Ahmed, Mohand Alshehri, Wail Alsheri, and Abdulaziz Alomari).

Closer to September 11, a further check of passenger lists against a more innocuous INS watch list (for expired visas) would have identified Ahmed Alghandi. Through him, the same sort of relatively simple correlations could have led to identifying the remaining hijackers, who boarded United 93 (which crashed in Pennsylvania).”

In addition, Al-Midhar and Nawaf Alhamzi, the two who were on the terrorist watch list, rented an apartment in San Diego under their own names and were listed, again under their own names, in the San Diego phone book while the FBI was searching for them.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but what is needed is better and more timely analysis. Simply piling up more raw data that is almost entirely irrelevant is not only not going to help. It may actually hurt the cause. As one FBI agent said privately of Ashcroft: “We’re looking for a needle in a haystack here and he (Ashcroft) is just piling on more hay.”

In other words, the mass collecting of personal data on hundreds of millions of people actually makes it more difficult to protect the nation against terrorists, so they ought to cut most of it out.

And meanwhile, the real story is that while the administration manages to convey the impression that it is doing everything possible to protect America, in reality it has seriously neglected most of the measures that it could have taken to really make our country safer.

For example, there is still no serious strategy for domestic security that protects critical infrastructure such as electric power lines, gas pipelines, nuclear facilities, ports, chemical plants and the like.

They’re still not checking incoming cargo carriers for radiation. They’re still skimping on protection of certain nuclear weapons storage facilities. They’re still not hardening critical facilities that must never be soft targets for terrorists. They’re still not investing in the translators and analysts we need to counter the growing terror threat.

The administration is still not investing in local government training and infrastructures where they could make the biggest difference. The first responder community is still being shortchanged. In many cases, fire and police still don’t have the communications equipment to talk to each other. The CDC and local hospitals are still nowhere close to being ready for a biological weapons attack.

The administration has still failed to address the fundamental disorganization and rivalries of our law enforcement, intelligence and investigative agencies. In particular, the critical FBI-CIA coordination, while finally improved at the top, still remains dysfunctional in the trenches.

The constant violations of civil liberties promote the false impression that these violations are necessary in order to take every precaution against another terrorist attack. But the simple truth is that the vast majority of the violations have not benefited our security at all; to the contrary, they hurt our security.

And the treatment of immigrants was probably the worst example. This mass mistreatment actually hurt our security in a number of important ways.

But first, let’s be clear about what happened: this was little more than a cheap and cruel political stunt by John Ashcroft. More than 99% of the mostly Arab-background men who were rounded up had merely overstayed their visas or committed some other minor offense as they tried to pursue the American dream just like most immigrants. But they were used as extras in the Administration’s effort to give the impression that they had caught a large number of bad guys. And many of them were treated horribly and abusively.

Consider this example reported in depth by Anthony Lewis:

“Anser Mehmood, a Pakistani who had overstayed his visa, was arrested in New York on October 3, 2001. The next day he was briefly questioned by FBI agents, who said they had no further interest in him. Then he was shackled in handcuffs, leg irons, and a belly chain and taken to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. Guards there put two more sets of handcuffs on him and another set of leg irons. One threw Mehmood against a wall. The guards forced him to run down a long ramp, the irons cutting into his wrists and ankles. The physical abuse was mixed with verbal taunts.

“After two weeks Mehmood was allowed to make a telephone call to his wife. She was not at home and Mehmood was told that he would have to wait six weeks to try again. He first saw her, on a visit, three months after his arrest. All that time he was kept in a windowless cell, in solitary confinement, with two overhead fluorescent lights on all the time. In the end he was charged with using an invalid Social Security card. He was deported in May 2002, nearly eight months after his arrest.

The faith tradition I share with Ashcroft includes this teaching from Jesus: “whatsoever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me.”

And make no mistake: the disgraceful treatment suffered by many of these vulnerable immigrants at the hands of the administration has created deep resentments and hurt the cooperation desperately needed from immigrant communities in the U.S. and from the Security Services of other countries.

Second, these gross violations of their rights have seriously damaged U.S. moral authority and goodwill around the world, and delegitimized U.S. efforts to continue promoting Human Rights around the world. As one analyst put it, “We used to set the standard; now we have lowered the bar.” And our moral authority is, after all, our greatest source of enduring strength in the world.

And the handling of prisoners at Guantanomo has been particularly harmful to America’s image. Even England and Australia have criticized our departure from international law and the Geneva Convention. Sec. Rumsfeld’s handling of the captives there has been about as thoughtful as his “postwar” plan for Iraq.

So the mass violations of civil liberties have hurt rather than helped. But there is yet another reason for urgency in stopping what this administration is doing. Where Civil Liberties are concerned, they have taken us much farther down the road toward an intrusive, “Big Brother”-style government -- toward the dangers prophesized by George Orwell in his book “1984” -- than anyone ever thought would be possible in the United States of America.

And they have done it primarily by heightening and exploiting public anxieties and apprehensions. Rather than leading with a call to courage, this Administration has chosen to lead us by inciting fear.

Almost eighty years ago, Justice Louis Brandeis wrote “Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. . . . They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty.” Those who won our independence, Brandeis asserted, understood that “courage [is] the secret of liberty” and "fear [only] breeds repression."

Rather than defending our freedoms, this Administration has sought to abandon them. Rather than accepting our traditions of openness and accountability, this Administration has opted to rule by secrecy and unquestioned authority. Instead, its assaults on our core democratic principles have only left us less free and less secure.

Throughout American history, what we now call Civil Liberties have often been abused and limited during times of war and perceived threats to security. The best known instances include the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798-1800, the brief suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, the extreme abuses during World War I and the notorious Red Scare and Palmer Raids immediately after the war, the shameful internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, and the excesses of the FBI and CIA during the Vietnam War and social turmoil of the late 1960s and early 1970s.

But in each of these cases, the nation has recovered its equilibrium when the war ended and absorbed the lessons learned in a recurring cycle of excess and regret.

There are reasons for concern this time around that what we are experiencing may no longer be the first half of a recurring cycle but rather, the beginning of something new. For one thing, 2this war is predicted by the administration to “last for the rest of our lives.” Others have expressed the view that over time it will begin to resemble the “war” against drugs – that is, that it will become a more or less permanent struggle that occupies a significant part of our law enforcement and security agenda from now on. If that is the case, then when – if ever -- does this encroachment on our freedoms die a natural death?

It is important to remember that throughout history, the loss of civil liberties by individuals and the aggregation of too much unchecked power in the executive go hand in hand. They are two sides of the same coin.

A second reason to worry that what we are witnessing is a discontinuity and not another turn of the recurring cycle is that the new technologies of surveillance – long anticipated by novelists like Orwell and other prophets of the “Police State” -- are now more widespread than they have ever been.

And they do have the potential for shifting the balance of power between the apparatus of the state and the freedom of the individual in ways both subtle and profound.

Moreover, these technologies are being widely used not only by the government but also by corporations and other private entities. And that is relevant to an assessment of the new requirements in the Patriot Act for so many corporations – especially in the finance industries – to prepare millions of reports annually for the government on suspicious activities by their customers. It is also relevant to the new flexibility corporations have been given to share information with one another about their customers.

The third reason for concern is that the threat of more terror strikes is all too real. And the potential use of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist groups does create a new practical imperative for the speedy exercise of discretionary power by the executive branch – just as the emergence of nuclear weapons and ICBMs created a new practical imperative in the Cold War that altered the balance of war-making responsibility between Congress and the President.

But President Bush has stretched this new practical imperative beyond what is healthy for our democracy. Indeed, one of the ways he has tried to maximize his power within the American system has been by constantly emphasizing his role as Commander-in-Chief, far more than any previous President -- assuming it as often and as visibly as he can, and bringing it into the domestic arena and conflating it with his other roles: as head of government and head of state – and especially with his political role as head of the Republican Party.

Indeed, the most worrisome new factor, in my view, is the aggressive ideological approach of the current administration, which seems determined to use fear as a political tool to consolidate its power and to escape any accountability for its use. Just as unilateralism and dominance are the guiding principles of their disastrous approach to international relations, they are also the guiding impulses of the administration’s approach to domestic politics. They are impatient with any constraints on the exercise of power overseas -- whether from our allies, the UN, or international law. And in the same way, they are impatient with any obstacles to their use of power at home – whether from Congress, the Courts, the press, or the rule of law.

Ashcroft has also authorized FBI agents to attend church meetings, rallies, political meetings and any other citizen activity open to the public simply on the agents’ own initiative, reversing a decades old policy that required justification to supervisors that such infiltrations has a provable connection to a legitimate investigation;

They have even taken steps that seem to be clearly aimed at stifling dissent. The Bush Justice Department has recently begun a highly disturbing criminal prosecution of the environmental group Greenpeace because of a non-violent direct action protest against what Greenpeace claimed was the illegal importation of endangered mahogany from the Amazon. Independent legal experts and historians have said that the prosecution -- under an obscure and bizarre 1872 law against “sailor-mongering” -- appears to be aimed at inhibiting Greenpeace’s First Amendment activities.

And at the same time they are breaking new ground by prosecuting Greenpeace, the Bush Administration announced just a few days ago that it is dropping the investigations of 50 power plants for violating the Clean Air Act – a move that Sen. Chuck Schumer said, “basically announced to the power industry that it can now pollute with impunity.”

The politicization of law enforcement in this administration is part of their larger agenda to roll back the changes in government policy brought about by the New Deal and the Progressive Movement. Toward that end, they are cutting back on Civil Rights enforcement, Women’s Rights, progressive taxation, the estate tax, access to the courts, Medicare, and much more. And they approach every issue as a partisan fight to the finish, even in the areas of national security and terror.

Instead of trying to make the “War on Terrorism” a bipartisan cause, the Bush White House has consistently tried to exploit it for partisan advantage. The President goes to war verbally against terrorists in virtually every campaign speech and fundraising dinner for his political party. It is his main political theme. Democratic candidates like Max Cleland in Georgia were labeled unpatriotic for voting differently from the White House on obscure amendments to the Homeland Security Bill.

When the Republican leader in the House of Representatives, Tom DeLay, was embroiled in an effort to pick up more congressional seats in Texas by forcing a highly unusual redistricting vote in the state senate, he was able to track down Democratic legislators who fled the state to prevent a quorum (and thus prevent the vote) by enlisting the help of President Bush’s new Department of Homeland Security, as many as 13 employees of the Federal Aviation Administration who conducted an eight-hour search, and at least one FBI agent (though several other agents who were asked to help refused to do so.)

By locating the Democrats quickly with the technology put in place for tracking terrorists, the Republicans were able to succeed in focusing public pressure on the weakest of the Senators and forced passage of their new political redistricting plan. Now, thanks in part to the efforts of three different federal agencies, Bush and DeLay are celebrating the gain of up to seven new Republican congressional seats in the next Congress.

The White House timing for its big push for a vote in Congress on going to war with Iraq also happened to coincide exactly with the start of the fall election campaign in September a year ago. The President’s chief of staff said the timing was chosen because “from a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.”

White House political advisor Karl Rove advised Republican candidates that their best political strategy was to “run on the war”. And as soon as the troops began to mobilize, the Republican National Committee distributed yard signs throughout America saying, “I support President Bush and the troops” -- as if they were one and the same.

This persistent effort to politicize the war in Iraq and the war against terrorism for partisan advantage is obviously harmful to the prospects for bipartisan support of the nation’s security policies. By sharp contrast, consider the different approach that was taken by Prime Minister Winston Churchill during the terrible days of October 1943 when in the midst of World War II, he faced a controversy with the potential to divide his bipartisan coalition. He said, “What holds us together is the prosecution of the war. No…man has been asked to give up his convictions. That would be indecent and improper. We are held together by something outside, which rivets our attention. The principle that we work on is, ‘Everything for the war, whether controversial or not, and nothing controversial that is not bona fide for the war.’ That is our position. We must also be careful that a pretext is not made of war needs to introduce far-reaching social or political changes by a side wind.”

Yet that is exactly what the Bush Administration is attempting to do – to use the war against terrorism for partisan advantage and to introduce far reaching controversial changes in social policy by a “side wind,” in an effort to consolidate its political power.

It is an approach that is deeply antithetical to the American spirit. Respect for our President is important. But so is respect for our people. Our founders knew – and our history has proven – that freedom is best guaranteed by a separation of powers into co-equal branches of government within a system of checks and balances -- to prevent the unhealthy concentration of too much power in the hands of any one person or group.

Our framers were also keenly aware that the history of the world proves that Republics are fragile. The very hour of America’s birth in Philadelphia, when Benjamin Franklin was asked, “What have we got? A Republic or a Monarchy?” he cautiously replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

And even in the midst of our greatest testing, Lincoln knew that our fate was tied to the larger question of whether ANY nation so conceived could long endure.

This Administration simply does not seem to agree that the challenge of preserving democratic freedom cannot be met by surrendering core American values. Incredibly, this Administration has attempted to compromise the most precious rights that America has stood for all over the world for more than 200 years: due process, equal treatment under the law, the dignity of the individual, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom from promiscuous government surveillance. And in the name of security, this Administration has attempted to relegate the Congress and the Courts to the sidelines and replace our democratic system of checks and balances with an unaccountable Executive. And all the while, it has constantly angled for new ways to exploit the sense of crisis for partisan gain and political dominance. How dare they!

Years ago, during World War II, one of our most eloquent Supreme Court Justices, Robert Jackson, wrote that the President should be given the “widest latitude” in wartime, but he warned against the “loose and irresponsible invocation of war as an excuse for discharging the Executive Branch from the rules of law that govern our Republic in times of peace. No penance would ever expiate the sin against free government,” Jackson said, “of holding that a President can escape control of executive powers by law through assuming his military role. Our government has ample authority under the Constitution to take those steps which are genuinely necessary for our security. At the same time, our system demands that government act only on the basis of measures that have been the subject of open and thoughtful debate in Congress and among the American people, and that invasions of the liberty or equal dignity of any individual are subject to review by courts which are open to those affected and independent of the government which is curtailing their freedom.”

So what should be done? Well, to begin with, our country ought to find a way to immediately stop its policy of indefinitely detaining American citizens without charges and without a judicial determination that their detention is proper.

Such a course of conduct is incompatible with American traditions and values, with sacred principles of due process of law and separation of powers.

It is no accident that our Constitution requires in criminal prosecutions a “speedy and public trial.” The principles of liberty and the accountability of government, at the heart of what makes America unique, require no less. The Bush Administration’s treatment of American citizens it calls “enemy combatants” is nothing short of un-American.

Second, foreign citizens held in Guantanamo should be given hearings to determine their status provided for under Article V of the Geneva Convention, a hearing that the United States has given those captured in every war until this one, including Vietnam and the Gulf War.

If we don’t provide this, how can we expect American soldiers captured overseas to be treated with equal respect? We owe this to our sons and daughters who fight to defend freedom in Iraq, in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world.

Third, the President should seek congressional authorization for the military commissions he says he intends to use instead of civilian courts to try some of those who are charged with violating the laws of war. Military commissions are exceptional in American law and they present unique dangers. The prosecutor and the judge both work for the same man, the President of the United States. Such commissions may be appropriate in time of war, but they must be authorized by Congress, as they were in World War II, and Congress must delineate the scope of their authority. Review of their decisions must be available in a civilian court, at least the Supreme Court, as it was in World War II.

Next, our nation’s greatness is measured by how we treat those who are the most vulnerable. Noncitizens who the government seeks to detain should be entitled to some basic rights. The administration must stop abusing the material witness statute. That statute was designed to hold witnesses briefly before they are called to testify before a grand jury. It has been misused by this administration as a pretext for indefinite detention without charge. That is simply not right.

Finally, I have studied the Patriot Act and have found that along with its many excesses, it contains a few needed changes in the law. And it is certainly true that many of the worst abuses of due process and civil liberties that are now occurring are taking place under the color of laws and executive orders other than the Patriot Act.

Nevertheless, I believe the Patriot Act has turned out to be, on balance, a terrible mistake, and that it became a kind of Tonkin Gulf Resolution conferring Congress’ blessing for this President’s assault on civil liberties. Therefore, I believe strongly that the few good features of this law should be passed again in a new, smaller law – but that the Patriot Act must be repealed.

As John Adams wrote in 1780, ours is a government of laws and not of men. What is at stake today is that defining principle of our nation, and thus the very nature of America. As the Supreme Court has written, “Our Constitution is a covenant running from the first generation of Americans to us and then to future genera­tions.” The Constitution includes no wartime exception, though its Framers knew well the reality of war. And, as Justice Holmes reminded us shortly after World War I, the Constitution’s principles only have value if we apply them in the difficult times as well as those where it matters less.

The question before us could be of no greater moment: will we continue to live as a people under the rule of law as embodied in our Constitution? Or will we fail future generations, by leaving them a Constitution far diminished from the charter of liberty we have inherited from our forebears? Our choice is clear.



May. 19, 2003

Bob Graham faces next challenge

Can 'centrist' win vote in primaries?


Sen. Bob Graham suffered a political setback last week when he found himself in the unlikely position of having to defend his commitment to restoring the Everglades.

But after the furor died down, a potentially more troubling question remained for his presidential campaign: Is Graham politically adept enough to make the transition from Senate insider to presidential candidate, especially given that Democratic primary voters tend to be left of the political center?

Graham has become Florida's most popular politician with a deliberate and conciliatory approach that allows others to take the lead on controversial issues.

''He is a work-it-out kind of politician,'' said Charlie Reed, who served as his chief of staff when Graham was governor and now heads California's state university system. ``He seeks a win-win for everyone in almost all cases. That's the way he thinks, and it is what has kept him from getting in trouble.''

Graham has said he will take the same approach running for president that he did winning statewide office five times in Florida.

In recent campaign stops, he has pitched himself as a ''centrist'' candidate who represents ``the electable wing of the Democratic Party.''

Graham has called for a tax cut that favors low- and middle-income workers that is in line with plans proposed by the other candidates, and his proposal to expand healthcare to the uninsured would do so through a series of steps that he believes has a better chance of getting through Congress than the far-reaching plan of Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri.

''I believe that you don't set policy from the end zone,'' he said earlier this month in South Carolina. ``You set policy from the 50-yard line and build out until you have a majority.''

But with that kind of compromise approach, Graham runs the danger of being another failed presidential candidate from the Senate. Since 1984, 10 senators have run for president, and 10 have lost, among them Bob Dole of Kansas, who lost to President Clinton in 1996.

''Senators get what is referred to as Bob Dole disease,'' said Neil Newhouse, a prominent Republican pollster. ``They want to compromise on issues and meet halfway. Governors and presidents don't do that. They draw a line in the sand and challenge legislators and voters to cross that line.

``The skills that make someone a good U.S. senator are not the skills that make someone a good presidential candidate.''


There is a more successful type of candidate, as Graham likes to point out on the campaign trail: Four out of the last five men elected president had been governors. Graham makes that point in noting that he was Florida's governor from 1979 until 1987, when he became a senator.

Indeed, Graham has drawn the proverbial line in the sand when it comes to the Middle East.

Among the six major Democratic presidential candidates, he has been the sharpest critic of President Bush's policy for Iraq and its neighbors.

He was the only senator running for president who voted last year against the measure authorizing the attack.

He did so, he has said, because he believes that the U.S. government should focus on crippling the activities of terrorists in other countries who he said present a greater threat to Americans than Iraq.

Graham also won attention a week ago for saying on CBS' Face the Nation that the Bush administration is refusing to release a post-Sept. 11 congressional report to cover up information that would embarrass the president.


But in the meantime, he was outmaneuvered on an issue that he has identified as one of his legacies: protecting the Everglades.

It became an issue after the Florida Legislature approved a measure that would delay the Everglades restoration effort, with critics saying lawmakers acted at the behest of Big Sugar.

In an April 17 letter to the governor, Graham and Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida asked him to create a forum ``for all stakeholders to meet and present issues, determine the best scientific evaluations, discuss solutions and make recommendations to the appropriate decision makers.''

In a May 13 letter to President Bush, Graham asked him to ensure that the U.S. House of Representatives will fully fund the restoration effort.

On Thursday, a Herald story quoted several environmental leaders criticizing Graham for not going further and suggesting he had not done so because he doesn't want to offend Big Sugar, a past campaign donor of Graham's, given his need to raise cash for his presidential campaign.

Meanwhile, two of Graham's rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination -- Sen. John Kerry and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean -- have won points with environmentalists by calling on Gov. Bush to veto the measure.

Even some leading Republicans -- particularly Rep. Clay Shaw and Rep. C.W. ''Bill'' Young -- have asked the governor to veto the Everglades measure.

Bud Shorstein, formerly Graham's Senate chief of staff, defended his ex-boss afterward, saying he has taken the lead on cleaning up the River of Grass both when he was governor and as a senator. Shorstein even noted that Graham was raised on a farm that abutted the Everglades.


''He might have been thinking as a U.S. senator, not as a candidate for president,'' Shorstein said.

``He approaches things very intellectually. He likes to hear all arguments on an issue.

``Is that caution? I'd say it's deliberate.''

But many campaign pros question whether that approach will work in the Democratic primaries.

''In Florida and in the Senate, he's never fought for credit. That's delightful,'' said Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia professor and author of campaign books. ``But if you're to run for president and distinguish yourself from others, you have to be quick to grab for credit.''

There are nine Democratic presidential candidates. No one has broken from the rest of the pack.


Graham ''has been aggressive on issues that would be helpful in challenging Bush in a general election,'' Sabato added, referring to Graham's criticism of the president's Middle East policies. ``But there's one problem: He's an also-ran for the Democratic nomination. He needs to focus almost entirely on issues that move Democratic activists, to get them committed to Bob Graham. He can't use the national security card unless he gets into the general election.''

Graham believes that Democrats are desperate to defeat Bush and will choose a former governor, a Southerner -- he notes that the last three Democratic presidents came from Texas, Georgia and Arkansas -- and someone with strong foreign policy credentials.

Besides his views on the Middle East, Graham believes he will distinguish himself from the other candidates through his ''workdays,'' where he performs someone else's job for a day.

Graham's workdays, which he has now carried out in a high school in New Hampshire and a diner in Iowa, have won raves from local residents.

May 18. 2003

Tough talk, trade choices ahead for candidates



WASHINGTON - The spin room at the University of South Carolina was buzzing after the nine Democratic presidential candidates squared off in their first debate on May 3.

Surrounded by reporters, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida took his time to mull a question that could be important for him. Asked if his pro-trade record would hurt him in South Carolina, the site of the first primary in the South and the third in the nation, he hesitated for several seconds.

"I don't think so," he said, after the pause.

On stage during the debate, he had defended free trade as good for America. But Graham knew many South Carolina voters would think of their devastated textile industry and disagree.

Graham's uncertainty about how his trade position will play underscores a challenge for pro-trade Democratic candidates. Jobs will be a dominant issue and labor unions are expected to weigh in heavily as candidates campaign during an economic downturn.

Trade questions will be asked more often as the nation turns its attention to a  fight brewing in Miami this November. Leaders from 34 nations will meet there to hammer out the biggest free trade deal yet, the hemisphere-wide Free Trade Area of the Americas, or FTAA, which is supposed to be all but complete by the time presidential votes are cast in 2004.

The trade bloc would eclipse the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada, which remains a sore subject 10 years after implementation.

By November, primary campaigns will be in high gear. Labor, environmental and anti-globalization groups are readying for a showdown that analysts say will put a spotlight on trade.

Several candidates who are critical of trade agreements have already raised the issue in early primary states.

Florida is a port state where tens of thousands of jobs depend on trade. But agricultural concerns run high. A coalition of Florida citrus groups has signed a $7 million lobbying and public relations contract with the prestigious law firm Akin Gump to win tariff protections in the FTAA deal, and the sugar industry warns of domestic forfeitures if South American sugar is allowed to flow freely to the United States.

Most voters don't know where their orange juice comes from, whether their T-shirts were made in Mexico, or if the steel in their office buildings came from China - or why. But they do know that jobs are scarce.

Last month, the trade deficit hit $43.5 billion, the second largest imbalance on record, behind the $44.9 billion trade imbalance in December.

"I think it will be a significant issue as part of the overall discussion of the future of the American economy," Graham said in an interview last week. "I believe our nation is benefited by global trade."

"My position is that trade should not be a law of the jungle," said Graham, who has been an architect for several compromise trade agreements, including pacts with Caribbean and some South American countries. "There should be rules that everyone can abide by, and those issues should include labor standards, human rights standards and environmental standards."

Among Democratic presidential contenders, Graham shares that view with Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who also favor trade but argue they would be tougher negotiators than President George W. Bush or former President Bill Clinton.

Rep. Richard Gephardt and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean want to renegotiate NAFTA and other pacts. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio argues NAFTA should be broken completely and the World Trade Organization dismantled.

Sen. John Edwards' voting record straddles both sides of the argument.

Last year, with support from Graham, Kerry and Lieberman, Congress gave the president trade promotion authority that bars lawmakers from the negotiating process and only allows them to vote for or against trade deals. Gephardt and Kucinich voted against it.

Edwards, of North Carolina, initially voted for a version of the bill that included protections for the textile industry and extended benefits for workers displaced by trade, but he voted against the final version because it didn't include those provisions.

"It's in Americans' interest to sell as much as we can abroad," said Ed Turlington, a strategist for Edwards. "The question is, how do you have agreements and how do you enforce them in a way that is good for America?"

AFL-CIO officials say the candidates' records on this issue will be key. Gephardt, a longtime opponent of free trade deals, is leading with unions.

"Trade is going to be a part of the economic debate. There's no doubt about it," said Michael Wessel, a former aide to Gephardt and trade policy expert.

The Economic Policy Institute, a liberal pro-labor think tank, estimates that trade cost 3 million more U.S. jobs than it created from 1994 to 2000. Since 2000, the manufacturing sector lost 2 million jobs and some critics say trade agreements helped encourage the drop. Conservatives, who favor free trade as an economic necessity and a diplomatic tool, argue trade is a scapegoat.

"There always will be the easy connection politically between someone's economic woes and a trade agreement," said Michael Franc, vice president of government affairs for the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Graham faces a challenge at home.

He said protecting a specific product isn't feasible, as citrus growers demand for orange juice. Graham said he supports a broader mechanism to prevent one country from gaining a world monopoly on any product, which citrus groups argue would happen if tariffs on Brazilian juice are lowered. That safeguard, however, isn't on the table yet in the FTAA negotiations, which are supposed to be complete by 2005 and could be rejected or accepted by the winner of the 2004 presidential election.

Milan Dluhy, chairman of the political science department at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, said the candidates have just begun to grapple with the complex and often volatile trade debate.

"It's kind of a sleeper issue for the Democrats," he said.

Democrat Eyes Potential Grounds for Bush Impeachment

Thu Jul 17, 7:51 PM ET

By John Milne

CONCORD, N.H. (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Bob Graham said on Thursday there were grounds to impeach President Bush if he was found to have led America to war under false pretenses.

While Graham did not call for Bush's impeachment, he said if the president lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq (news - web sites) it would be "more serious" than former President Bill Clinton (news - web sites)'s lie under oath about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

"If in fact we went to war under false pretenses that is a very serious charge," Graham, the senior U.S. senator from Florida, told reporters in New Hampshire.

"If the standard of impeachment is the one the House Republicans used against Bill Clinton, this clearly comes within that standard," he said.

Democrats and some Republicans have raised questions about the unsubstantiated claim Bush made in his January State of the Union speech that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa in its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.

Graham's comments came as reporters followed up on his remarks earlier this week that any deception by Bush over Iraq might rise to the standard of an impeachable offense -- as defined by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives when it voted to impeach Clinton.

Clinton was ultimately cleared by the U.S. Senate after being impeached by the House.

After his appearance in New Hampshire, Graham issued a statement saying he was not calling for Bush's impeachment and saw the issue as a largely academic one, adding that if Bush had misled the American public he would pay the price for it in the 2004 presidential election.

In Washington on Thursday, Bush told a news conference that the speech reference was based on "sound intelligence" and he was certain that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program.

"We won't be proven wrong," he said with British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) at his side.

The flap over Iraq upstaged Graham's economic proposals. He said his plan would balance the federal budget within five years while providing middle-class tax relief and creating 3 million new jobs.

His plan would repeal most of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. It would reinstate a 38.6 percent tax bracket for wealthy individuals and create a new "millionaires tax bracket" at 40 percent. Graham also proposed cracking down on individuals and companies who transfer assets offshore or renounce U.S. citizenship to escape taxation.

Bob Graham withdrew from the Presidential race, on October 6, 10-03-03, stating that he knows he can't win, hasn't been able to get around to pick up funds for the face, and that he had surgery for a health problem. He also stated that he would not be supporting any one particular other candidate at this time.



By Andrew Miga
Boston Herald
Thursday, May 15, 2003

WASHINGTON - Sen. John F. Kerry expounds on many issues in his presidential campaign, but he's completely silent on one topic: his membership in Skull and Bones, Yale's infamous secret society.

"John Kerry has absolutely nothing to say on that subject. Sorry," said Kerry spokeswoman Kelley Benander.

Kerry is a respected senator and a decorated Vietnam War combat veteran, but 36 years after he was initiated into what has been called the "ultimate old boy network," he's wary of breaking the ultra-exclusive club's strict secrecy code.

There's also another high-profile member of the club: President Bush.

Bonesmen already are buzzing over the prospect of the first Bones vs. Bones presidential race should Kerry win his party's nomination and face Bush in 2004.

"Bones don't care who wins," said author Alexandra Robbins, whose book "Secrets of the Tomb" pierced the secrecy shrouding the 171-year-old society. "If Kerry wins, it's still a Bones presidency."

Robbins calls the group "probably the most secretive and successful club in America," and adds, "It's also pretty bizarre."

Every year, 15 Yale juniors are tapped for the club, which holds meetings twice a week in a crypt-like building known as the "Tomb."

Robbins described the interior, replete with skulls and skeletons, as a cross between the "Addams Family" and a slightly shabby English men's club.

There are bizarre initiation rites, including a ceremony where new members must spend an evening before a roaring fire in the Tomb recounting details of their sexual history to fellow members.

Kerry was tapped for the club in 1968, two years after Bush, whose father and grandfather were also Bonesmen. Kerry's brother-in-law from his first marriage, David Thorne, was Bones. So was the late husband of Kerry's current wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry. The Bones alumni roster is flush with CIA officials, business moguls, congressmen and Supreme Court justices. The club owns a secluded 40-acre island retreat on the St. Lawrence River.

In 1986, Kerry allegedly tried to recruit Jacob Weisberg, then a college-age intern at "The New Republic" magazine.

Weisberg, now Slate magazine editor, said Kerry made his pitch during a private meeting in his Senate office. Weisberg declined, pointedly asking Kerry how he squared his liberalism with membership in such an elitist club that refused to admit women. "Kerry got sort of flustered and said, 'I've marched with battered women,'" Weisberg told the Herald.

Five years later, Kerry was among those voting to force the club to admit women after a bitter court fight.

Profile: Sen. John Kerry


McClatchy Newspapers

May 19, 2003

COLUMBIA, S.C. - Sen. John Kerry contends his record as the only Democratic presidential candidate who has fought in a war strengthens his position as a challenger of President Bush next year in an election in which national security and the economy will be major issues.

Still hoarse from a hectic weekend in South Carolina, where his reverberating rhetoric at a political fish fry almost cost him his voice at the first debate between the nine Democratic hopefuls, Kerry cast himself as a leader who could keep America safe in a world threatened by terrorism.

"I can stand toe to toe with George W. Bush to talk about ways to keep this country safe and to rebuild the economy," Kerry said in an interview.

He accused the president of failing to keep his word to provide financial support for first responders who have the task of fighting the war on terrorism at home, as well as sending the nation's economy into a tailspin of unemployment.

Asserting that the first domestic terrorist assault on America on Sept. 11, 2001, had already demonstrated a lasting impact on the life of the nation, Kerry reported lingering uneasiness among voters around the country, especially about homeland security and the economy.

"People are worried about their children and their future, about health costs and education, about decimated retirement, about lost jobs, about personal safety," he said. "There is anxiety out there. That is why I think Bush can be beaten."

There is a Kennedyesque flair to the senator who stands a head taller than his Democratic competitors and looks like the well-tailored Boston Brahmin he is.

Like Bush, Kerry is a child of privilege, scion of a wealthy family, now the husband of Theresa Heinz Kerry, heir to her late husband's $600 million ketchup fortune. Kerry has not ruled out tapping into family money in the 2004 campaign, in which Bush is expected to raise and spend $200 million.

Unlike Bush, who joined the National Guard, Kerry chose to volunteer to serve in the Vietnam War. Although highly decorated after serving on a Navy gunboat in the Mekong Delta, Kerry returned disillusioned by American policy. He frequently evokes the memory of that dramatic era with a George Bernard Shaw quotation favored by the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy: "Some men see things as they are and ask why; I dream things that never were and ask why not."

Kerry tells audiences those words were "seared into my memory," because he associated them with hearing the news of Kenney's assassination while sailing back to the United States from Vietnam.

"I believe it is again time for this country to ask why not," said the senator who became an anti-war activist and environmental leader on his return from Southeast Asia.

A three-term senator and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for 18 years, Kerry voted in favor of the congressional resolution authorizing the war in Iraq. But he was sharply critical of Bush's diplomatic style, blaming it for the alienation of American allies in preparation for war with Iraq and charging the administration with "blustering unilateralism."

Political pundits rank Kerry in the top three of the current Democratic field, although Andy Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire survey center, said that at this early stage it was a question of how many people had heard of the candidates, let alone having an opinion about them.

The Massachusetts senator has been criticized for being aloof, a charge that evoked a wry reaction during the Democrats' South Carolina debate, when he reflected, "Probably I ought to just disappear and contemplate that by myself."

Kerry will announce a health care plan later this month that he said would provide more options, some of them along the lines of the federal medical care system.

"The president and members of Congress should offer the American people the care they get themselves," he said.

Kerry has proposed reviving economic growth through a payroll tax holiday, the extension of unemployment benefits, raising the minimum wage and expanding the earned income tax credit for low-income family. Kerry charged that the president's proposed tax cut, which stirred controversy even among Republicans, boiled down to "let's have a tax cut, no matter what."



Come hear DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE CONGRESSMAN DENNIS KUCINICH of Ohio, who happens to be VEGAN!!!! He authored the new DEPT. of PEACE in Congress, and has been leading the anti-war movement on the hill. We even interviewed him for the MAD COWBOY documentary!

(please go to his site to read past speechs, his stand on issues, and to sign up for email notices.)

“Yes, I am a candidate for peace. I am a candidate for economic justice. I am a candidate for choice. I am a candidate for social justice. I am a candidate who says we can change the outcome. We can change this country. We can change the world.” --Cong. Kucinich (read more from him below)

FRIDAY, APRIL 04, 2003, 8:30pm
Temple Kol Tikvah, 20400 Ventura Blvd.,
1 blk W of Winnetka, Woodland Hills , FREE

SATURDAY, APRIL 5, 2003, 1pm
Immanuel Presbyterian Church, 3300 Wilshire Blvd.,
near Vermont, L. A., FREE, but please RSVP: (323) 692-6912
He will be introduced by Ed Asner.


Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), who leads opposition to the War in Iraq within the House, issued the following statement on the House floor this past Tuesday:

"Stop the war now. As Baghdad will be encircled, this is the time to get the UN back in to inspect Baghdad and the rest of Iraq for biological and chemical weapons. Our troops should not have to be the ones who will find out, in combat, whether Iraq has such weapons. Why put our troops at greater risk? We could get the United Nations inspectors back in.

Stop the war now. Before we send our troops into house-to-house combat in Baghdad, a city of five million people. Before we ask our troops to take up the burden of shooting innocent civilians in the fog of war.

Stop the war now. This war has been advanced on lie upon lie. Iraq was not responsible for 9/11. Iraq was not responsible for any role al-Qaeda may have had in 9/11. Iraq was not responsible for the anthrax attacks on this country. Iraq did not tried to acquire nuclear weapons technology from Niger. This war is built on falsehood.

Stop the war now. We are not defending America in Iraq. Iraq did not attack this nation. Iraq has no ability to attack this nation. Each innocent civilian casualty represents a threat to America for years to come and will and up making our nation less safe. The seventy-five billion dollar supplemental needs to be challenged because each dime we spend on this war makes America less safe. Only international cooperation will help us meet the challenge of terrorism. After 9/11 all Americans remember we had the support and the sympathy of the world. Every nation was ready to be of assistance to the United States in meeting the challenge of terrorism. And yet, with this war, we have squandered the sympathy of the world. We have brought upon this nation the anger of the world. We need the cooperation of the world, to find the terrorists before they come to our shores.

Stop this war now. Seventy-five billion dollars more for war. Three-quarters of a trillion dollars for tax cuts, but no money for veterans' benefits. Money for war. No money for health care in America, but money for war. No money for social security, but money for war. We have money to blow up bridges over the Tigris and the Euphrates, but no money to build bridges in our own cities. We have money to ruin the health of the Iraqi children, but no money to repair the health of our own children and our educational programs.

Stop this war now. It is wrong. It is illegal. It is unjust and it will come to no good for this country.

Stop this war now. Show our wisdom and our humanity, to be able to stop it, to bring back the United Nations into the process. Rescue this moment. Rescue this nation from a war that is wrong, that is unjust, that is immoral.

Stop this war now."


excerpt from the San Francisco Chronicle, Monday, March 31, 2003

"My role as co-chairman of the progressive caucus (in Congress) is to be out front with progressive policies and alternatives," he said. "I want to put out another view of America's role in the world."

Kucinich jumps eagerly into areas unseen in the platforms of the other Democratic presidential contenders. He is backing an effort to end the death penalty for federal crimes, wants universal heath care for all Americans and calls for total nuclear disarmament.

If elected, he promises to end the country's participation in the World Trade Organization, dump the North American Free Trade Agreement and return to bilateral trade agreements, under which the United States can demand that other countries pay workers a living wage, allow union organizing and respect human rights.

Kucinich also worries about the country's willingness to go it alone in world affairs, without treaties or other international agreements.

"This policy that makes the United States the policeman, judge, jury and executioner of the world must be reversed," he said in his speech. The United States "must work with the other nations of the world in matters of international security."

But Kucinich always brought the topic back to the war in Iraq, where he said he "supports our troops, but not their mission."

For years, Cong. Kucinich has done anti-war activism, including his plan for a Cabinet-level Department of Peace, which would promote nonviolent solutions to national and international problems.

Nonviolence and international cooperation are even more important now that "a great nation is unleashing devastating destruction against a humble nation ravaged by sanctions," Kucinich said.

"If a bomb drops in the marketplace in Baghdad, we feel it," he said. "When a mother mourns the life of a child in Basra, it's our loss, too."

The war is not only hurting America's standing and reputation with the other countries of the world, but also the people at home, Kucinich said.

"It's unconscionable that we have the money to blow up bridges over the Tigris and Euphrates, but not the money to rebuild bridges in this country," he said.

Kucinich is confident that there's an audience out there for his liberal, anti-war message. Mayor of Cleveland in 1977 at the age of 31, Kucinich beat a Republican incumbent in 1996 to win his current congressional seat.

"I've shown the ability to attract votes to progressive Democratic programs in Cleveland, which is Middle America," he said. "I fully expect that I'll stay in contention for the Democratic nomination."

(c) 2003 San Francisco Chronicle


Marr Nealon
Respect for Life productions



Lieberman seeking monthly debates

Democrat is seen trying to capitalize on earlier showing

By Glen Johnson, Globe Staff, 5/16/2003

DES MOINES -- Senator Joseph I. Lieberman yesterday called on his fellow Democratic presidential contenders to agree to a monthly series of nationally televised debates, an idea that may bring order to a process that currently finds the candidates swamped with debate requests from an array of special interest groups.

Several of the rival campaigns expressed interest in the offer, which would begin in July, even as some speculated privately that Lieberman was attempting to sidestep appearing before liberal-leaning groups that might oppose his more conservative record on subjects such as the environment. One political analyst said the Connecticut Democrat was also trying to attract attention after a successful performance in a debate two weekends ago in South Carolina, which, unfortunately for Lieberman, occurred late on a Saturday night before a limited audience.

''If we all agree that the Democratic primary should be one of ideas, let's all agree to appear regularly before the voters on television in media-sponsored, neutral debates that have the potential of reaching the widest possible audience,'' wrote Craig T. Smith, Lieberman's campaign director. ''Doing so would not only help ensure that the voters hear our voices but that the Republican Party is not permitted to dominate the political debate with its fund-raising resources and with the media power of the presidency.''

Jim Jordan, campaign manager for Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, said: ''It's an interesting proposal. Like every campaign, we have concerns about the proliferation of debate invitations. . . . We welcome our obligation to speak to as many interest groups and outside media outlets as possible, but the travel requirements can become onerous.'' Erik Smith, spokesman for the campaign of Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, agreed, saying: ''There are just too many requests to be able to do all of them. You want to bring some organization to the process.''

As the schedule stands, the nine-member field has been invited to forums before the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, the League of Conservation Voters, and the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, all within a six-day span next month. Those debates are scheduled to occur in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Phoenix. In July, the candidates have been invited to three more debates over a four-day span in Austin, Texas, Washington, D.C., and Miami.

While signaling an interest in the Lieberman proposal, two campaigns indicated it may enlarge the debating schedule.

''We would not be for something that said if we go this route, there is not [a League of Conservation Voters] debate or other debates. We would not be for that. We're for all debates,'' said Joe Trippi, campaign manager for Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor.

Jennifer Palmieri, campaign spokeswoman for Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, said: ''We wouldn't do it to the exclusion of other debates. We think that if you could have a nationally available forum where you have all the candidates talk about the issues once a month, that's good for John Edwards and all the candidates.''

William Schneider, an independent political analyst with the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, said the goal of Lieberman's proposal is to corral media attention for the senator.

Amid questions about lax fund-raising and lackluster campaigning, Lieberman came out strongly during the May 3 South Carolina debate. He not only chided Dean and Kerry over the issue of war with Iraq but also took on Gephardt over the cost of his health care proposal.

Yet the debate did not start until 9 p.m., and its viewership was restricted to ABC stations in 50 markets. C-Span, the cable TV public service station, aired it four times in the following days.

''Lieberman is widely regarded as having `won' the South Carolina debate and no one was watching,'' Schneider said. While public opinion polls show Lieberman leading his rivals in South Carolina, an early primary state, that support is tenuous and based on his name recognition serving as Al Gore's running mate in 2000.

''If he was perceived as the loser, believe me, this would not be happening,'' said Schneider.

Glen Johnson can be reached at

© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.



NAACP threatens economic boycott

By Andrew Dys The Herald

(Published May 18‚ 2003)

York County Council's refusal to mandate a Martin Luther King Jr. holiday has spurred plans by a national civil rights group for a countywide economic boycott starting Monday.

Political effects on the council about changing the holiday are uncertain, if there are to be any effects at all. County workers can now take the King holiday or their birthday as a paid day off.

Political pressure on local politicians is almost nonexistent at this point, said Rick Whisonant, a political science professor at York Technical College and an expert on local politics. The local push for a change in county policy so far has come mainly from the two county branches of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Both groups hoped to work with the County Council on the issue. Neither were invited to speak May 6 when the council voted 6-1 against changing the policy.

"Right now, it appears there is no political risk for the County Council to change its policy," Whisonant said. "If there is a large local outcry about this issue, I haven't seen it."

The National Action Network, which is calling for the once-a-month boycott, was founded by Democratic presidential candidate Al Sharpton. It is unclear whether Sharpton will attend Monday's boycott kickoff, set for noon in front of the York County Courthouse at the corner of Liberty and Congress streets in York.

Greenville County, which has not mandated a King holiday, has seen demonstrations and threats of economic boycotts led by native Jesse Jackson. Lexington County is the other of the state's 46 counties that does not close offices on the third Monday in January. Laurens, Pickens, and Union counties have changed King holiday policies since January. Rep. Fletcher Smith, D-Greenville, sponsored a bill that would mandate the holiday in all counties. The bill failed.

Rep. Gary Simrill, R-Rock Hill, who opposed the bill, said the York County Council made the right decision. Only Councilman Buddy Motz voted in favor of a mandated holiday.

"I think York County made the right decision not to bend on their beliefs, no matter if Al Sharpton threatens a boycott or not," Simrill said. "It's a moot point. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson can come here and beat their chests, but this is a decision based on merit, not on political pressure."

For three years, the state NAACP has pushed for a statewide economic boycott to protest the Confederate flag. The flag was moved in 2000 from the Statehouse dome to a monument on the Statehouse grounds, which did not satisfy the NAACP. While most observers agree the boycott has not had a major impact, some effects have been felt in York County.

The NCAA will not allow special events like national tournaments in South Carolina because of the boycott, said Bennish Brown, Rock Hill/York County Tourism and Sports Commission director. A college women's golf tournament Rock Hill was awarded before the boycott, and later hosted, could not be bid on again, Brown said. York County also could not bid on the women's basketball tournament for the Division II South Atlantic Conference, of which Rock Hill Mayor Doug Echols is commissioner, although the city was positioned perfectly in size, connections and qualifications to net the tourney, Brown said.

York County could become the focus of national media attention with its refusal to change, said both Whisonant and John Holder, a Winthrop University professor and secretary of the York County Democratic Party.

"As far as the outside world is concerned, it looks like York County is 50 years behind the times," Holder said. "It is a national holiday and a state holiday."

South Carolina has a long history of politicians disliking outside forces telling them what to do, Whisonant said, even with the symbolism of the King holiday that could resonate to national levels. Democratic presidential candidates who visit York County will surely be asked their opinion about the King holiday, Whisonant said.

Simrill said S.C. politicians' historic disdain for outsiders telling them what to do "remains alive and well," all the way down to the local level. The boycott is another example of how symbolism is important in the King holiday debate, Whisonant said, but any policy change will have to come from locals.

The proposed one Monday a month boycott of food and gas purchases would have little or no effect, Simrill said. Whisonant said there may even be a backlash with "a flood of people buying gas just to prove a point that locals don't like to be told what to do by people from the outside."

Simrill has received no phone calls on either side of the issue from his constituents, and said the media is stirring up the controversy.

Shelton J. Boyd, executive director of the Charlotte chapter of the National Action Network that has called for Monday's march and boycott, said he wants to raise awareness, not "shake things up." Monday is also the birthday of slain civil rights leader Malcolm X, Boyd said.

Organizers expect about 30 people to attend the event, including speakers who will talk about what King means to them and the importance of recognizing his birthday.

"Imagine where this country would be today if there wasn't a Dr. King," Boyd said.

After the York County gathering, organizers are planning marches on other counties in the Carolinas that don't recognize King Day as a full holiday, Boyd said.

Contact Andrew Dys at 329-4065 or Herald senior reporter Caroline Brustad contributed to this article.


Sharpton built his career on speaking loud, proud


The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Kevin Wolf / AP

Democratic presidential hopeful Al Sharpton addresses the Democratic National Committee in Washington on Saturday. He says of his bid: "I'm going to slap that [Democratic] donkey until he kicks George Bush out of the White House."


• Age: 49

• Education: Graduate, Tilden High School, New York. Attended Brooklyn College, but did not graduate.

• Experience: Unsuccessful candidate for New York Senate, 1978; U.S. Senate, 1992 and 1994; New York mayor, 1978. Founder, National Action Network.

• Family: Wife, two daughters

NEW YORK -- The Rev. Al Sharpton is a long shot to win the Democratic presidential nomination. But he is the front-runner for most interesting candidate.

"The Rev," as his supporters call him, was ordained at age 9, worked for Adam Clayton Powell Jr. at 13, later befriended and managed James Brown, the Godfather of Soul, and worked with boxing promoter Don King and civil rights leader Jesse Jackson.

He also was an FBI informant, survived a stabbing and then visited his assailant in jail, and went to jail himself. He still professes the belief that Tawana Brawley was telling the truth, and he is proclaimed by former New York Mayor Ed Koch -- who once called him "Rev. Charlatan" -- to have more wit than the other nine candidates combined.

At 49, Sharpton -- whose campaign says he will speak at Atlanta's Spelman College on Tuesday -- has been called a saint and a street hustler. But he's never been accused of being boring.

His whole life has been built upon speaking up -- loud and proud. Even the numbness left over from an emergency root canal couldn't silence him last week.

"You're going to see me going all over this country slapping the donkey," Sharpton said, referring to the symbol of the Democratic Party. "I'm going to slap that donkey until he kicks George Bush out of the White House."

'Boy Wonder Preacher'

Born Oct. 3, 1954, Sharpton was 4 when he put on his mama's bathrobe, pretended that a candle was a microphone, and began preaching to his sister's dolls.

The Sharpton family lived in a racially mixed middle-class neighborhood in Queens, N.Y. His father, Alfred Sr., was a contractor and landlord who drove a Cadillac. His mother, Ada, was a devout churchgoer. Young Alfred's sermons soon spread from his sister Cheryl's dolls to real people filling real pews. He was called the "Boy Wonder Preacher."

But in 1964, the Sharpton family fragmented. Young Alfred's teenage half sister, Tina -- his mother's child by a previous marriage -- was impregnated by his father. The two moved away together. The remaining family members moved to the Brownsville housing project in Brooklyn and went on welfare.

Sharpton's early role model, Bishop Frederick Douglas Washington, became one of a series of surrogate fathers. The minister urged the boy to read widely. One of those books was a biography of Adam Clayton Powell Jr., minister of the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem and the first African-American to represent New York in Congress.

Young Sharpton was so moved by the book that he and his sister took the subway one Sunday to hear Powell preach. After the service, the boy preacher boldly marched to the church office and announced that the Rev. Sharpton was there to meet the Rev. Powell. Not long afterward, Sharpton became a member of the congressman's entourage. Sharpton counts Powell, who died in 1972, as a major influence in his life.

"I learned from Adam Powell, I think, defiance," Sharpton said.

"Powell became very powerful even in the Congress and what we would call the power structure," Sharpton said. But "he never lost his defiance, his willingness and ability to stand up against great odds and against what he felt was wrong."

In 1969, Sharpton was named national youth director for Operation Breadbasket, a civil rights organization based in Chicago. The national adult director was the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

"I learned civil rights from him," Sharpton recalled. "I learned civil disobedience. Passive resistance. Protests. March. And then later, politics. Jackson's runs for president were the case studies in how activism can transcend into electoral politics."

In the early 1970s, Sharpton went backstage at a concert in New Jersey and met the man who would teach him the showmanship that became a prominent part of his career: James Brown.

Sharpton went to work for the soul singer, known as "the hardest-working man in show business."

"He's got just about every award you can get in music, but he did it on his own terms," said Sharpton. "That's what I learned from Brown. You've got to have enough courage and determination to go your way and do it your way. If you do, in the end the world will have to respect you."

It was Brown who told Sharpton that "Alfred" was too long and not catchy enough for an activist. The singer declared, "It's got to be Al Sharpton," the candidate recalled. "And from that night on, that's what I called myself."

Brown even pushed Sharpton into his trademark straightened hairstyle. In 1981 they were on their way to the White House to lobby for making the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday a national holiday.

"[Brown] said, 'You're like my son, and I want you to style your hair like mine so when they take your pictures . . . with me they'll know you're like my son,' " Sharpton said.

While working for Brown, Sharpton became acquainted with Don King, the wild-haired boxing promoter. Mobutu Sese Seko, then president of Zaire, wanted a James Brown concert to go along with his country's hosting of the "Rumble in the Jungle" heavyweight championship fight between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman.

During this period, Sharpton drew the attention of law enforcement agencies. In what he later called "a failed entrapment attempt by the government," the FBI taped Sharpton as he listened to an undercover agent discuss a drug deal. However, no criminal charges were ever filed. Sharpton himself was an informant for a time, a point of controversy in some circles.

"I gave the FBI information on drug dealers. And I think I should be saluted for that," he said.

Brawley controversy

But the events that were most controversial -- and that made Sharpton a national figure -- were racial protests in New York.

On Nov. 28, 1987, Tawana Brawley, a 15-year-old black girl living in Wappingers Falls, N.Y., claimed to have been abducted and raped by six white men. Sharpton became one of her advisers, organizing marches and protests in her behalf. He accused an assistant district attorney of being one of the assailants.

The case was thrown out of court in 1988, and a grand jury ruled Brawley's story had been fabricated. A decade later, a jury found Brawley, Sharpton and two other advisers liable for defamation. He was hit with a $65,000 judgment.

"I believe something happened to Tawana Brawley," Sharpton maintained last week. "I think it is absurd that someone would say that a 15-year-old girl could have made all that up, including fooling a hospital."

Sharpton has also been accused of some financial irregularities, including failing to file a tax return in 1986. He told National Public Radio that he subsequently filed it and paid the fine. He has been jailed several times for illegal protests.

In 1989 Sharpton became involved in another racial incident that nearly cost him his life. Sharpton was leading a protest in Bensonhurst, N.Y., when a young white man broke through police ranks and stabbed him in the chest.

Though the wound was close to being life-threatening, Sharpton said, "I ended up going to his sentencing and asking the judge to have leniency on him."

After the attacker sent him a letter apologizing, Sharpton visited him in prison.

"It was a difficult thing to do, because this man did try to kill me," he said. "But I thought it was the right thing to do and after I did it, I thought it was one of the better things I've done in life."

In conversation, Sharpton speaks softly and without the cadence of the pulpit.

"I want to be president because I think that not only does this country need a new director, it needs a new direction," he said. "I think the direction that the country is going in terms of these across-the-board tax cuts, these foreign engagements like Iraq, and the whole matrix of moving away from the respect and the sacred upholding of the vote and civil liberties is the wrong direction.

"I happen to feel that too many in my own party, the Democratic Party, have accommodated some of this, which is why I decided to enter the Democratic primaries to win the nomination and challenge Bush," he said.

On the stump, Sharpton often attacks the Democratic Leadership Council, a group that has pushed the party toward the political center and has counted among its members former President Clinton.

"The swing vote is not on the right," Sharpton declared at a recent Congressional Black Caucus gathering. "The swing vote is in the barrios and the 'hood and the hip-hop generation."

Ed Kilgore, policy director of the Democratic Leadership Council, challenged Sharpton's assessment of the party's direction.

"The myth that the Democratic Party is moving way to the right is just that -- a myth," Kilgore said. "There is no shortage of centrist candidates attacking the president."

More mainstream

In recent years Sharpton himself has moved toward the political mainstream, forging an alliance with former New York Mayor Ed Koch, once a foe, when they pushed together for legislation to end disparities in sentencing between black and white drug offenders.

Politically, Sharpton has shown an ability to win African-American votes but not elections. In the 1994 Democratic primary for the New York senator's race, Sharpton received 80 percent of the black vote and 25 percent of the total against Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Sharpton said the establishment routinely disrespects him as a candidate.

"I think the media has an innate double standard -- not only with people of color, but of candidates that don't fit their profile," he said. "For example, in most national polls I am in the top five, top six candidates. I've been ahead of Bob Graham and John Edwards in mostly all of the polls. What makes them top-tier candidates and me second-tier?"

As for fund-raising, he conceded that his campaign would not "raise the kind of dollars that others are raising."

"But I don't have to have those kinds of dollars," he said. "We're going to have what we need to do what we want."


Religion and Politics Blur With Sharpton in Pulpit


Published: October 5, 2003

The Rev. Melvin Brown was up at the pulpit one Sunday morning last month, in front of his congregation at the Greater New Hope Baptist Church in Washington, exhorting his followers to give money, cash or checks, to the Rev. Al Sharpton. He wanted big donations.

"If the checks are good, and there is no rubber in them, you can make them out to Rev. Al Sharpton," Mr. Brown said with a preacher's flair. "Remember this is a love offering for a preacher. This is not political."

Dapper men with white gloves walked up and down the aisles, passing the brass bowls the church uses for its weekly collections. The final count was about $800, aides to Mr. Sharpton said. All of it went right in Mr. Sharpton's pocket, they said, rather than into his campaign coffers.

The entanglement between the personal and public lives of Mr. Sharpton has often proved controversial, especially in the area of finances. He once claimed in a deposition not to own a television, a radio or even a suit, but to have access to those items because, he said, they were either owned by his businesses or given to him as gifts.

Now he is a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president, and once again the lack of boundaries between being a preacher, a civil rights advocate, a businessman and a political candidate has raised some ethical and legal questions.

A spokesman for the Federal Election Commission, which monitors campaign fund-raising and spending, said Mr. Sharpton would have been safer if he had sought an advisory opinion before passing the basket at his church appearances. Such opinions are commonly sought by candidates to ensure they do not violate campaign finance rules.

The spokesman, Bob Biersack, said the closest analogy he could find was a 1992 case that involved a candidate for federal office who was being paid for a speaking engagement. In that case, the agency said the candidate would meet their criteria if he did not blur the lines between politics and his work. To avoid that, no one could mention his candidacy at the speaking event.

It was different at Greater New Hope Baptist in Washington.

"Wouldn't you like to have someone like that as president of the United States?" said Mr. Brown, the pastor, after Mr. Sharpton had finished an hour of preaching.

It is often hard to tell where Mr. Sharpton the preacher stops and Mr. Sharpton the candidate begins. When he appeared before the congregation in Washington, his campaign paid for his travel from New York, campaign staff members said. But, they said, he was also there as a preacher.

Mr. Sharpton spoke about politics and his candidacy, as well as about Jesus, faith and religion. He was introduced as the best in the field of candidates for the nomination, but when it came time to solicit donations from the assembled, Mr. Brown said that Mr. Sharpton was visiting as a preacher, not a politician. He referred to the donations as a love offering, like others he had asked the congregation to give visiting preachers.

Legal experts inside and outside government said it was difficult to say whether Mr. Sharpton's activities would pass muster with the F.E.C. They said the circumstances were unusual and touched on an area that the government has generally tried to avoid policing: the nexus between religious organizations and political activities.

But some watchdog groups have said that Mr. Sharpton's activities should be looked at, to ensure that there is a level playing field for all candidates and that churches are not misused.

"The concern that the Interfaith Alliance has is that to use religion in that manner is to manipulate religion for a partisan political purpose," said the Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, president of a nonprofit group that promotes the separation of church and state. "That ultimately hurts religion as well as hurts government and the democratic process."

Mr. Sharpton scoffs at the notion that his collecting money in churches might in any way be campaign-related. He says his preaching is a job and should be viewed no differently from any other candidate's job.


Friends & Fellow Citizens!

Our democracy is in dire danger of being systematically destroyed by the zealots in the Bush administration. The recently enacted federal "election reform" laws now prohibit paper ballots and exit polls. That means NO paper trail and NO indication of voter preference. With all traces and records of votes effectively removed, detection and prosecution of voter fraud becomes virtually impossible.

For some obscure reason, the Democrats chose not to challenge the theft of the presidency in 2000. They chose not to object to the purging of upwards of 57,000 legal voters-over half of them black and Hispanic, most of them Democrats- from the Florida voter rolls. Here are the interesting connections:

The State of Florida contracted with Data Base Technologies (DBT), a division of ChoicePoint of Atlanta Georgia. Most states purge their voter lists from time to time to eliminate ineligible voters (died, moved, felons serving prison sentences)-but no other state had ever privatized this process.

ChoicePoint proceeded to scrub thousands of names, purportedly because of criminal records, acquired either in Florida or in other states, ignoring the fact that most states restore voting privileges once the sentence has been completed. Do the math: 57,000-plus mostly Democratic voters deprived of their voting privilege-and George W. Bush "wins" by 500-some votes.

Florida Governor Jeb Bush was sued and was supposed to have returned the illegally scrubbed voters to the rolls. He did not comply-and easily won his last reelection.

We now find that this same company produces "touch-screen" voting machines, used in a number of states in the 2002 elections. The results? Max Cleland, a popular Vietnam vet, lost in Georgia. Several other Democrats, ahead in the polls, met defeat on election day. Republican U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel won in Nebraska. Hagel, it turns out, was the head of, and continues to own part interest in, the company that owns the company that installed, programmed, and largely ran the voting machines that were used by most of the citizens of Nebraska.

When Hagel's Democratic challenger, Charlie Matulka, requested a hand count of the vote in the election, his request was denied. It seems that Nebraska had a just-passed law that prohibited government-employee election workers from looking at the ballots, even in a recount. The only machines permitted to count votes in Nebraska are those made and programmed by the corporation formerly run by Hagel. His surprise victory may prove to have been a trial-run for the 2004 presidential election.

Our election process is being turned over to corporate-programmed, computer-controlled, modem-capable voting machines. This is a very scary proposition. It makes moot all grassroots campaigning, all get-out-the-vote efforts, all informative seminars and town-hall meetings, all precinct walking, all political debates. An election, under these circumstances, becomes a charade, a meaningless exercise.

We all need to contact our senators and congressional representative to insist that they initiate and support a thorough investigation of this voter fraud and the behind-the-scenes machinations. Further, urge that they act to correct the inadequacies of the so-called "Election Reform" legislation to preserve our right as citizens to vote.

For more, check out <>. Also read "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Recipients are permitted, indeed encouraged, to distribute the enclosed information.

Peace, freedom & democracy! louisa]

Democratic National Committee

Copyright © 1995-2003 DNC Services Corporation Powered by Plus Three and QRSNewmedia.

Paid for by the Democratic National Committee — ...

The official Liberal Democrat website

Website of the United Kingdom Liberal Democrats - get the latest news on the party   and find out how you can help. ... Copyright © 2003, Liberal Democrats. ...

YDA :: The Young Democrats of America ::

The Young Democrats of America is a nationwide grassroots organization with 42 chartered states and 780 local chapters open to anyone under the age of 36

College Democrats of America  :: Home

Welcome to the website of the College Democrats of America! CDA is the official college outreach arm of the Democratic Party and ...

New Democrats Online: The Democratic Leadership Council's Online ...

New Democrats Online (NDOL) is the Democratic Leadership Council's online community for political leaders at the forefront of the New Democrat movement

National Stonewall Democrats

Democrats Abroad

Democrats Abroad is the official Democratic Party organization for the three million American citizens who live outside the United States. ...

Washington State Democrats

Washington State Democrats. Washington Democrats Vote for Early Caucus

Baal, Baalim

(Hebrew Bá'ál; plural, Be`alîm.)

A word which belongs to the oldest stock of the Semite vocabulary and primarily means "lord", "owner". So in Hebrew, a man is styled baal of a house (Ex., xxii, 7: Judges, xix, 22), of a field (Job, xxi, 39), of cattle (Ex., xxi, 28; Isa., i, 3) of wealth (Eccles, v, 12), even of a wife (Ex, xxi, 3; cf. Gen., iii, 16). The women's position in the Oriental home explains why she is never called Bá`alah of her husband). So also we read of a ram, "baal" of two horns (Dan, viii, 6, 20), of a baal of two wings (i.e. fowl: Eccles., x, 20). Joseph was scornfully termed by his brother a baal of dreams (Gen., xxxvii, 19). And so on. (See IV Kings, i, 8: Isa., xli, 15; Gen., xlix, 23; Ex., xxiv, 14, etc.) Inscriptions afford scores of evidence of the word being similarly used in the other Semitic languages. In the Hebrew Bible, the plural, be`alîm, is found with the various meanings of the singular; whereas in ancient and modern translations it is used only as a referring deities. It has been asserted by several commentators that by baalim the emblems or images of Baal (hámmanîm, máççebhôth, etc.) should be understood. This view is hardly supported by the texts, which regularly points out, sometimes contemptuously, the local or other special Baals.


When applied to a deity, the word Baal retained its connotation of ownership, and was, therefore, usually qualified. The documents speak, for instance, of the Baal of Tyre, of Harran, of Tarsus, of Herman, of Lebanon of Tamar (a river south of Beirut), of heaven. Moreover, several Baals enjoyed special attributions: there was a Baal of the Covenant (Bá`ál Berîth (Judges, viii, 33; ix 4); cf. 'El Berîth (ibid., ix, 46}; one of the flies (Bá`ál Zebub, IV Kings, i, 2, 3, 6, 16,); there also probably was one of dance (Bá`ál Márqôd); perhaps one of medicine (Bá`ál Márphê), and so on. Among all the Semites, the word, under one form or another (Bá`ál in the West and South; Bel in Assyria; Bal, Bol, or Bel im Palmyra) constantly recurs to express the deity's lordship over the world or some part of it. Not were all the Baals -- of different tribes, places, sanctuaries -- necessarily conceived as identical; each one might have his own nature and his own name; the partly fish shaped Baal of Arvad was probably Dagon; the Baal of Lebanon, possible Cid "the hunter"; the Baal of Harran, the moongod; whereas in several Sabean Minaean cities, and in many Chanaanite, Phoenician, or Palmyrene shrines, the sun was the Baal worshipped, although Hadad seems to have been the chief Baal among the Syrians. The diversity of the Old Testament intimates by speaking of Baalim, in the plural, and specifying the singular Baal either by the article or by the addition of another word.

What the original conception was is most obscure. According to W.R. Smith, the Baal is a local God who, by fertilizing his own district through springs and streams, becomes its lawful owner. Good authorities, nevertheless, oppose this view, and reversing the above argument, hold that the Baal is the genius-lord of the place and of all the elements that cause its fecundity; it is he who gives "bread, water, wool, flax, oil, and drink" (Os, ii, 5; in the Hebr. text 7); he is the male principle of life and reproduction in nature, and such is sometimes honoured by acts of the foulest sensuality. Whether or not this idea sprang from, and led to the monotheistic conception of supreme deity, the Lord of Heaven, of whom the various Baals would be so many manifestations, we shall leave to scholars to decide. Some deem that the bible favours this view, for its language frequently seems to imply the belief in a Baal par excellence.


The evidence is hardly of such weight as to justify us in speaking of a worship of Baal. The Baal-worship so often alluded to and described in Holy Writ might, perhaps, be better styled, Çid-worship, moon-worship, Melek (Moloch)-worship, or Hadad-worship, according to places and circumstances. Many of the practices mentioned were most probable common to the worship of all the Baals; a few others are certainly specific.

A custom common among Semites should be noticed here. Moved, most likely, by the desire to secure the protection of the local Baal for their children, the Semites always showed a preference for names compounded with that of the deity; those of Hasdrubal (`Azrû Bá`ál), Hannibal (Hanni Bá`ál), Baltasar, or Belshazzar (Bel-sar-Ushshur), have become famous in history. Scores of such names belonging to different nationalities are recorded in the Bible, and in ancient writers, and in inscriptions.

The worship of Baal was performed in the sacred precincts of the high places so numerous throughout the country (Num., xxii, 41; xxxiii, 52; Deut., xii, 2, etc) or in temples like those of Samaria (III Kings, xvi, 32; IV Kings, x, 21-27) and Jerusalem (IV Kings, xi, 18), even on the terraced roofs of the houses (IV Kings, xxiii, 12; Jer., xxxii, 29). The furniture of these sanctuaries probably varied with the Baals honoured there. Near the altar which existed everywhere (Judges, vi 25; III Kings, xviii, 26; IV Kings, xi, 18; Jer., xi, 13, etc.), might be found, according to the particular place, either an image of the deity (Hadad was symbolized by a calf), or the bætylion (i.e. sacred stone, regularly cone-shaped in Chanaan) supposed to have been originally intended to represent the world, abode of the god; of the hammanim (very possible sunpillars; Lev., xxvi, 30; II Par., xxiv, 4, etc.), and asherah (wrongly interpreted grove in our Bibles; Judges, vi, 25; III Kings, xiv, 23; IV Kings, xvii, 10; Jer., xvii, 2 etc.), a sacred pole, sometimes, possible, a tree, the original signification of which is far from clear, together with votive or commemorative stelae (máççebhôth, usually mistranslated images), more or less ornamented. There incense and perfumes were burned (IV Kings, xxii, 5; Jer., vii, 9, xi, 13, and according to the Hebrew, xxxii, 29), libations poured (Jer., xix, 13), and sacrifices of oxen and other animals offered up to the Baal; we hear even (Jer., vii, 31;xix, 5;xxxii, 35; II Par., xxviii 3) that children of both sexes were not infrequentlly burned in sacrifice to Melek (D. V. Moloch, A.V. Molech), and II Par., xxviii, 3 (perhaps also IV Kings, xxi, 6 ) tells us that young princes were occasionally chosen as victims to this stern deity. In several shrines long trains of priests, distributed into several classes (III Kings, xviii, 19; IV Kings, x, 19; xxiii, 5; Soph., i, 4, etc.) and clad in special attire (IV Kings, x, 22) performed the sacred function; they prayed, shouted to the Baal, led dances around the altar, and in their frenzied excitement cut themselves with knives and lancets, till they were all covered with blood (III Kings, xviii, 26-28). In the meantime the lay worshippers also prayed, kneeling, and paid their homage by kissing the images or symbols of the Baal (III Kings, xix, 18; Os., xiii, 2, Hebr.), or even their own hands. To this should be added the immoral practices indulged in at several shrines (III Kings, xiv, 24; IV Kings, xxiii, 7; cf. Deut., xxiii, 18) in honour of the Baal as male of reproduction, and of his mate Asherah (D.V. Astarthe, A. V. Ashtaroth).


Nothing could be more fatal to a spiritual faith than this sensual religion. In fact, no sooner than the Israelites, coming forth from the wilderness, been brought into contact with the Baal-worshippers, than they were, through the guile of the Madianites, and the attractions of the licentious worship offered to the Moabitish deity (probably Chamos), easily seduced from their allegiance to Yahweh (Num., xxv, 1-9). Henceforth the name of Beelphegor remained like a dark spot on the early history of Israel {Os., ix, 10; Ps. ev (In the Hebr. cvi), 28}. The terrible punishment inflicted upon the guilty sobered for awhile the minds of the Hebrews. How long the impression lasted we are hardly able to tell; but this we know, that when they had settled in the Promised Land, the Israelites, again forsaking the One True God, paid their homage to the deities of their Chanaanite neighours (Judges, ii, 11, 13 etc.). Even the best families could not, or did not dare, resist the seduction, Gedon's father, for instant, albeit his faith in his Baal seems to have been somewhat lukewarm (Judges, vi, 31), had erected an idolatrous altar in Ephra (Judges, vi, 25). "And the Lord, being angry against Israel, delivered them into the hands of their enemies that dwelt round about." Mesopotamians, Madianites, Amalecites, Ammonites, and, above all, Philistines, were successively the providential avengers of God's disregarded rights.

During the warlike reigns of Saul and David, the Israelites as a whole thought little of shaking Yahweh's yoke; such also was, apparently, the situation under Solomon's rule, although the example given by this prince must have told deplorably upon his subjects. After the division of his empire, the Northern Kingdom, first led by its rulers to an unlawful worship of Yahweh, sank speedily into the grossest Chanaanite superstitions. This was the more easy because certain customs, it seems, brought about confusion in the clouded minds of the uneducated portion of the people. Names like Esbaal (I Par., viii, 33; ix, 39), Meribbaal (I Par., viii, 34; ix, 40), Baaliada (I Par., xiv, 7), given by Saul, Johnathen, and David to their sons, suggest that Yahweh was possibly spoken of as Baal. The fact has been disputed; but the existence of such a name as Baalia ( i.e. "Yahweh is Baal", I Par., xii, 5) and the affirmation of Osee (ii, 16) are arguments that cannot be slighted. True, the word was used later on only in reference to idolatrous worship, and even deemed so obnoxious that bosheth, shame, was frequently substituted for it in compound proper names, thus giving, for instance, such inoffensive forms as Elioda (II Kings, v, 16), Yerubbesheth (II Kings, xi, 21, Hebr.)., Isboseth (II Kings, ii, 10) and elsewhere, Miphiboseth (II Kings, ix, 6; xxi, 8); but these corrections were due to a spirit which did not prevail until centuries after the age with which we shall presently deal.

Achab's accession to the throne of Israel inaugarated a new era, that of the official worship. Married to a Sidonian princess, Jezebel, the king erected to the Baal of her native city (Cid or Melkart) a temple (III Kings, xvi, 31, 32) in which a numerous body of priests officiated (III Kings, xviii, 19). To what a forlorn state the true faith in the Northern Kingdom fell Elias relates to III Kings, xix, 10, 14: The children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant: they have thrown down thy altars, they have slain thy prophets with the sword. There remained but seven thousand men whose knees had not been bowed before Baal (III Kings, xix, 18). Ochozias, son of Achab and Jezebel, followed in his parents footsteps (III Kings, xxii, 54) and although Joram, his brother and successor, took away the maccebhoth set up by his father, the Baal-worship was not stamped out of Samaria (IV Kings, iii, 2, 3) until its adherents were slaughtered and its temple destroyed at the command of Jehu (IV Kings, x, 18-28). Violent as this repression was, it hardly survived the prince who had undertaken it. The annals of the reigns of his successors witness to the religious corruption again prevailling; and the author of IV Kings could sum up this sad history in the following few words: They forsook all the precepts of the Lord their God: and made to themselves two molten calves, and groves [asherah], and adored all the host of heaven : and they served Baal. And consecrated their sons, and their daughters through fire: and they gave themselves to divinations, and soothsayings: and they delivered themselves to do evil before the Lord, to provoke him. And the Lord was very angry with Israel, and removed them from his sight . . . . and Israel was carried away out of their land to Assyria, unto this day. (IV Kings, xvii, 16-18, 23).

Meanwhile the kingdom of Juda fared no better. There, also, the princes, far from checking the drift of the people to idolatry, were their instigators and abettors. Established by Joram (IV Kings, viii, 18), probably at the suggestion of Athalia his wife, who was the daughter of Achab and Jezebel, the Phoenician worship was continued by Ochozias (IV Kings, viii, 27). We know from IV Kings, xi, 18 that a temple had been dedicated to Baal (very likely to Baal honoured in Samaria) in the Holy City, either by one of these princes or Athalia. At the latter's death, this temple was destroyed by the faithful people and its furniture broken to pieces (IV Kings, xi, 18; II Par., xxiii, 17). If this reaction did not crush utterly the Baal-worship in Juda, it left very little of it alive, since, for over a century, no case of idolatry is recorded by the sacred writers. In the reign of Achaz, however, we find the evil not only flourishing again, but countenanced by public authority. But a change has taken place in Juda's idolatry; instead of the Sidonian Baal, Melek (Moloch), the cruel diety of the Ammonites, had become the people's favourite (II Par., xxviii, 2; IV Kings, xvi, 3, 4). His barbarous rites rooted out Ezechias, appeared again with the support of Manasses, by whose influence the Assyro-Babylonian astral deities were added to the Pathenon of the Judean idolaters (IV Kings, xxiii, 4, 5) produced no lasting results, and after his death the various superstitions in vogue held sway until "the Lord cast out from his face Juda and Jerusalem" (IV Kings, xxiii, 32, 37; xxiv, 9, 19, and elsewhere).

The Babylonians invasions dealt to the Baal-worship in Palestine a deadly blow. At the restoration Israel shall be Yahweh's people, and He their God (Exech., xiv, 11), and Baal will become altogether a thing of the past.




... I see it in such things as - Old Testament/New Testament, Conservative/Liberal, Republican/Democrat, prosecuting attorney/defense attorney, Capitalism/Communism ...


... Norm Dicks, Washington Democrat, they are investigating at least one other border crossing involving an apparently fake identification and other “similar ...


... Carl Levin (D., Mich.), the panel's ranking Democrat hailed the measure as a "good bipartisan bill,'' adding that "it makes sure that our forces remain the best ...


... Star-Bulletin. The match that set the fire that ignited the red-baiting blaze in postwar Hawaii was tossed by Hawaii's Democrat-appointed Gov. Ingram Stainback. ...


... than good. "This bill is a lost opportunity," said Representative Henry  A. Waxman, a California Democrat.


... In World War I, Woodrow Wilson (who was a liberal, a Democrat; I mean, just to show that dissent is not limited to conservative Republicans like Bush). ...


... The election went to the Democrat, Martin Van Buren, but in opposition the Whigs grew steadily stronger. ...


... Democrat candidate Gore, who is currently lagging Bush by one point in opinion polls ahead of US elections in November ... ...


... The donkey, though Democrat also represents Typhon-Set. ...The long man of Wilmington This is an example of what the black ...


... Across the country, subtle and not-so-subtle mechanisms are put into place to disfranchise a significant fraction of the Democrat's African-American voter base


... Graham, whose case has attracted the support of celebrities such as actor Danny Glover, was granted a stay in 1993 by then Texas Gov. Ann Richards, a Democrat. ...


... Daschle, a Democrat, said on ABC television that there is ''strong bipartisan support'' and ''probably world support'' for ousting Hussein. ...


... the Southwest. The election went to the Democrat, Martin Van Buren, but in opposition the Whigs grew steadily stronger. The two ...


... I see it in such things as - Old Testament/New Testament, Conservative/Liberal, Republican/Democrat, prosecuting attorney/defense attorney, Capitalism/Communism ...


... Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, said she would file documents in support of the lawsuit at the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC. ...


... . A lifelong Democrat, John DiIulio had been a force for the compromise that will be needed to turn the legislation into law. ...


... campaign. The Democrat, James K. Polk of Tennessee, running on an expansionist platform calling for annexation, was swept into power. ...


... The lone Democrat appointed to Bush's cabinet, Mineta was offered the same job in the Clinton administration, but passed so he could continue as chairman


... The donkey, though Democrat also represents Typhon-Set. ... The long man of Wilmington This is an example of what the black ...


. Rep. Sander M. Levin, Michigan Democrat, also said trade had become a political issue for the 2000 elections.


... Louis law firm where Danforth is a partner. A lifelong Democrat, Dowd was recommended for the US attorney's job by House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo. ...


... Shirley Chisholm- first black woman elected to the US House of Representatives.- 1968 - and US Presidential candidate (Democrat Party) ...

ET Government Considering "Major or Epic Land Shift"

... right angle is obviously about the two main political factions in our country, namely the right-wing Republican Conservatives and left-wing Democrat Liberals.


... One of the questions was , "Will the Saviour of the World be DEMOCRAT,REPUBLICAN, OTHER. The little boy hit DEMOCRAT by mistake ..



NEW WORLD ORDER. During the period 1992-1994 ... Gravity Wave. 1990. President Bush delivers New World Order speech. Nutrition Labeling and ...


BELIEVE IT OR NOT!!! ... NEW WORLD ORDER, GEORGE BUSH, AND NAZI HISTORY. The History and Significance of the New World Order. ...


... Ex Government engineer tortured to death for revealing to the American public "black" government projects and engineered atrocities towards the New World Order ...


~. More on the Committee of 300. More on the New World Order. Immigration Cases and Law.


THE DREAM AND THE REALITY. by Dee Finney. 9-25-2001. ... People Who Have Written Positively About the New World Order. ...


... All those, who do not go along with this coming new world order, will be imprisoned ... was doing this before I went to sleep:


... . NEW WORLD ORDER. INDEX. ... Links to the "New World Order Agenda" on the Internet The truth is out there, you just have to look. WORMSCAN.


... Illuminati, Illuminati: New World Order, INWO, and Assassins are registered... ... NEW WORLD ORDER. Conspiracy of Evil - The Denver Airport. ...


... Kabbalah. The Millennium frontier - Frontier science and technology news. Space, high energy phisics, cloning, new world order.




... Satanic feds, implementing some criminally psychopathic, Fourth Reich agenda on behalf of their New World Order fuhrers, appear determined to--shall we say ...


... Gulag America. (New World Order's Concentration Camp Program). ... An interview with Mr. Sea regarding New World Order plans for the US and its citizens. ...




... Shortly after Desert Storm began, Mason George Bush pronounced that this the beginning of a "New World Order.". ... The Masonic New World Order. Masonic Creed. ...


... Accidents happen. We're supposed to believe the New World Order is killing its own high-ranking people - 7 UN officials and a former WHO team leader?


... The primary staging ground was our own military bases which the angel had shown me our New World Order US Government officials had handed over to the invaders. ...




... Of course it's true the Stalinist/Nazi psychos heading the New World Order love to cause panic and fear; and perhaps these ...


... Expected by both Judaism and Christianity (2nd time) * To save Israel from total annihilation by nuclear Holocaust * To set up a New World Order and rule


... as for UN council ... look folks ... everyone seems to be scared shitless about a NWO (New World Order) but don't throw out the baby with the bath water


... Humanity On The Pollen Path - Part Five (Tablet 988). ... THE NEW WORLD ORDER -WHAT IS IT? ... Templars. ...

Sylvester the Cat and Speedy Gonzales - May 5, 2003

... Disclosure will destabilize the building New World Order/Cabal. .. ...


... of 'cleansing' in which all the old, outmoded forms of life are to be 'cleansed' so that only those who fully accept the claims of the New World Order and its ...


... The New World Order, the takeover of the planet via the establishment of a world government, world army (NATO), world central bank and currency, and a micro ...


... Of course it's true the Stalinist/Nazi psychos heading the New World Order love to cause panic and fear; and perhaps these previous reports were nothing more ...


... very influential group of people that has been orchestrating world events for many generations towards the eventual goal of creating a New World Order based on ...


... on Sunday. When asked if ASEAN would ... THE NEW WORLD ORDER - A GOOD THING? ... D. Australian


... conditioning operation toward fostering a mindset to facilitate the decisive power maneuver for a New World Order in 1927 ..


... `The volatile mix of apocalyptic religious and (New World Order) conspiracy theories may produce violent acts aimed at precipitating the end of the world as


... Project MEGIDDO. Pentagon Reveals Weapons Locations. Conspiracies and Mind Control. Terrorism. Chemtrails. Nuclear War. New World Order.


. "Wisdom is knowing truth.". "Knowledge is ours but the toll is never free.". ...


... According to information relayed to me, the old Navy base is currently an active site for the "New World Order"-related Navy contingent running the present-day ...

Militia Groups

... Pat Robertson has often been the victim of his own intemperate statements, perhaps nowhere so evident as his 1991 book The New World Order, in which he

End Times Prophecy at Fatima

... in the 2nd Amendment; and who distrusts big government." In 1976, one of the most influential leaders in the drive toward the New World Order, David Spangler ...


... Welcome to the New World Order, where it "takes a village to raise a child" and parents are only custodians for their own children, children "owned" by the ...


... is that covert, fascistic factions of the US government--which for all practical purposes can most easily be described as "PRO-New World Order"--were directly ...


... The New World Order is so confident they are telling you what they are going to do before hand and then stick your ignorance in your face. ... NEW WORLD ORDER. ...


... He has called for a New World Order to “move us past nationalism.” He and Lee demand that America’s military be placed under the control of the United ...


... Ex Government engineer tortured to death for revealing to the American public "black" government projects and engineered atrocities towards the New World Order ...


... Jimmy Carter and the CFR cabal who ran his Administration, Iran was to be the starting domino in a chain reaction designed to usher in the new world order. .


... winning, Allah-sanctioned roll. If America is brought to its knees, the way is open for a new world order. Most militant Muslim ...


... The goal is the establishment of the long prophesied "New World Order", as suggested by the Latin phrase on the mysterious "Great Seal" on the American dollar ...


... And if enough people choose not investigate how this war was really started and who was behind it, we'll all deserve this new world order as a collective ...


... The secret is now out to those with eyes and ears, but, the veil of secrecy is being stripped away, and the mightiest beast of the New World Order (the USA


... I asked a person who was behind me what this was all about. The person said without hesitation, "this is the New World Order". The ...