THE BIG PRIMARY NEXT WEEK: NORTH CAROLINA

Ex-Senator John Edwards could do the transformative agenda he has espoused a great deal of good by making an endorsement. One candidate is a committed, grassroots progressive and the other is a pitiful Big Money corporate shill, in some ways only marginally better than the Republican incumbent. No, no, I'm not talking about Hillary; she may be a corporate shill but she's certainly better than the Republican incumbent and she's also much better than his sadly transformed doppelgangerish would-be replacement. You see, while everyone else is urging the Edwardses to do what Governor Easley just did and endorse in the presidential race-- where I doubt he would have much impact-- I would like him to do the right thing in the race for the U.S. Senate seat, currently held by pathetic rubber stamp Republican Elizabeth Dole.

In a race like this, where not many people are aware of the giant chasm between the two candidates, Edwards really could make a difference. One candidate, Kay Hagan, stands for everything he claims to detest. She is owned, lock, stock and barrel, by the same pernicious Big Money interests that own Dole-- and whom Edwards just spent two years railing against. The other candidate-- the one endorsed by Blue America-- is Jim Neal and he has a long way to go in the next 7 days if he's going to be able to beat back the Establishment and give North Carolina voters a real choice-- other than a basically meaningless choice between generic party labels-- in November.

Hagan rarely goes on the record saying anything. Her victory plan is to just be the establishment Democrat against the outsider in the primary and the generic Democrat against the hated Republican in November. And when she does go on record about something, she comes out against the basic values and principles that differentiate between the party of FDR and the party of George Bush. A corporate tool like Chuck Schumer may love her but she can't be trusted on choice, is as clueless as Dole on Iraq, is basically a George Bush Republican when it comes to tax policy, weak on economic policy, weak on ethics, adamantly unwilling to be pinned down on Equal Rights, on the wrong side of the health care issue, untrustworthy and confused about torture, weak on privacy rights, absolutely plutocratic when it comes to campaign finance reform, etc. She sounds like one of them, not one of us-- and certainly not the kind of progressive Democrat that Edwards has evolved into. In fact, you have to ask yourself, is Kay Hagan really a Democrat in anything but name? Hers is the party of corporate campaign contributions that are exchanged for favors at the expense of regular folks. 

It isn't likely that a Republican-light version of Elizabeth Dole is going to beat Elizabeth Dole, regardless of what Chuck Schumer's lizard brain is telling him. A few days ago the weekly paper in North Carolina's most Democratic area made passionate endorsements of the two candidates for real change-- Barack Obama for president and Jim Neal for U.S. Senator. The ten cogent reason they list for endorsing Obama are all also applicable to Neal-- except for #9:

He has a better chance of beating John McCain than Hillary Clinton does.

Jim Neal has the only chance of beating Elizabeth Dole. But the editors don't need to give Jim Neal a me-too endorsement. They had a whole set of reasons why he is a far better candidates-- and would make a far better U.S. Senator-- than Kay Hagan.

On the issues, there's a clear progressive choice in the Democratic primary: Chapel Hill businessman Jim Neal is our pick to take on Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole come November. And let's put it right out there: Neal is openly gay, which should no more influence whether he gets your vote than the fact that he's also openly white. What should influence it is his platform: Neal opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq and supports getting our troops out now; he supports universal health care; is against capital punishment; wants to scrap No Child Left Behind, Bush's counterproductive education program; proposes making the federal tax system more progressive; and advocates an Apollo-style program to wean the country from imported oil and develop alternative-energy sources, including conservation.

On gay rights, Neal supports full equality, including marriage, as a matter of law. But he also recognizes that the First Amendment guarantees religious freedom when it comes to whether same-sex unions should be sanctioned by various faiths.

Given his background as a Wall Street investment banker and venture capitalist, Neal is at his best when dissecting the causes of the nation's widening gap between rich and poor and the erosion of middle-class jobs. He calls it "unconscionable" that corporate CEOs make 400 times as much money as the average worker. His prescription for fixing what ails us includes sweeping investments in education and our economic infrastructure, not war, and for junking free-trade policies in favor of fair-trade ones. He thinks the federal government should prepare to buy mortgages and refinance them to prevent foreclosures.

HRC HAS SOME BAD POLITICAL ADVICE FOR GAY PEOPLE AND THEIR ALLIES

So whose side is HRC on, anyway?

In the gay political universe HRC doesn't only stand for the candidate working with John McCain to tear down the Democrat McCain will face in November. It also stands for something far more loathsome and treacherous than Hillary, the Human Rights Campaign. HRC is an Inside the Beltway kiss ass advocacy group for gay people. I was very proud in 1997 when they gave me a Leadership Equality Award for my work at fostering equality in the workplace at Warner Brothers. I even wrote them into my will.

But what opened my eyes to what HRC has become was their endorsement of Holy Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont. After I learned more about them I smashed my award and removed them from my will. HRC is one of those Inside the Beltway organizations that has long ago lost sight of its original mandate. Instead of fighting for gay equality, they fight to win DC status games and to enhance the future career prospects of the staff. When it comes to electoral politics, you can almost always expect the worst from HRC.

This past February their in house magazine prominently featured Republican rubber stamp and fake moderate Susan Collins (R-ME), including a 2 page spread giving the false impression that Collins is not the enemy of gay people. One of the more outrageous parts of their interview with Collins is a bit about the Gang of 14. They make it sound like her membership in it should be praised, but that’s pretty naive considering that one of the only accomplishments of the Gang was to ensure the confirmation of viciously homophobic, right-wing crazies on the federal bench like Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and Bill Pryor. But that's exactly what HRC has turned into-- an organization so concerned with looking "mainstream" and "adult" Inside the Beltway, that they will support the worst enemies of gay people on the political scene.

Today HRC announced its endorsements for Senate races around the country. They are asking the gay community to donate money to 10 cash-rich incumbents and four Democratic challengers, Jeanne Shaheen (DLC-NH), Mark Udall (D-CO), Tom Udall (D-NM), and Al Franken (D-MN). Among the incumbents is Collins, of course, who is running against a Democratic congressman, Tom Allen, who's voting record on gay issues is excellent and who is a true friend of the gay community and someone who, again, unlike Collins, will never ever, vote to confirm rabid homophobic judges. Among the other incumbents they endorsed are some outstanding senators like Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), John Kerry (D-MA), Tom Harkin (D-IA), and Jack Reed (D-RI) and at least one with a spotty voting record, Louisiana's conservative Democrat, Mary Landrieu, who, like Collins, routinely rubber stamps homophobic judges the Bush Regime pushes for lifetime appointments.

This morning I called Tom Allen and asked if I missing something about why HRC has endorsed Collins. Tom, the most positive campaigner I've ever met, never wants to say a negative word about anyone. Instead he wanted to talk about his own record on his support for gay people. “My record of fighting discrimination on all levels and for standing up for equality is consistent. When I was on the Portland City Council in Maine, we led the state in nondiscrimination practices by banning bias based on sexual orientation for housing, credit and employment. As a Member of Congress, I have consistently supported fairness and equality measures while opposing discrimination. As a member of the Senate, I will continue to do what is right for all people. Specifically, I will not support judicial nominees who don’t understand fairness and equal rights.” It would have been nice if HRC could have at least wrung something like that out of Collins before sending a confusing signal to gays and lesbians in Maine.

HRC's own scorecard for the 109th Congress-- the 110th isn't out yet-- gave Tom Allen a 100% rating and gave Collins a 78% although that rating doesn't reflect her votes and maneuvering for anti-gay judges. (She voted for both Alito and Roberts). None the less, aside from fundraising against Tom on her behalf, they claim they are also doing "on-the-ground organizing [and] GOTV efforts" on behalf of Collins and pushing her at gay pride events.

But it was a Senate race they chose to ignore that is the most shocking and disappointing element of their announcement today. North Carolina has two extreme right wing senators, Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr, each of whom can always be counted on to do whatever they can to make the lives of gay men and women less palatable and less safe. One, Elizabeth Dole, is up for re-election in November. There are two Democrats in a neck and neck primary battle to take her on, Republican-lite Establishment-backed Kay Hagan and grassroots progressive Jim Neal. Frankly, I don't know where Hagan stands on gay issues. I do know where Neal stands-- 100% with the gay community, of which he is an upfront member. Yes, one of the first times that an uncloseted gay man is running for the U.S. Senate-- in a race he can win-- and HRC is... abstaining. When we reached Jim this morning, he seemed disappointed. "There's no question their endorsement would have helped in fundraising and I certainly would have liked to have had it. People look to the HRC to encourage participation and promote change in the political system. Is it doing that? That's a valid question, and after this election is over, I think we need to look at groups like HRC and their endorsement process." Amen!

Tom Allen and Jim Neal have both been endorsed by Blue America. If you're a member of HRC how about skipping your HRC dues this year and sending the money to where it will do some good instead? Like here, for Tom and Jim. By the way, the first five donations today of at least $30 get, as a thank you, an autographed copy of Al Franken's book The Truth.


UPDATE: PAM SCHOOLS ME ON WHERE KAY HAGEN STANDS... THE MYSTERY DEEPENS

Pam pointed out this afternoon that Jim Neal is very clear on where he stands on gay issues. Kay Hagan? Not so much.

Even when I saw Hagan's communications coordinator Colleen Flanagan in person at the BlueNC blogger gathering yesterday (many pro-LGBT candidates were there, including Jim Neal), she didn't say when or if Hagan would issue any positions on:

1. Federal hate crimes legislation.
2. Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).
3. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal
4. The Uniting American Families Act (H.R. 2221, S. 1328)
5. The federal Defense of Marriage Act
6. Whether her view that the definition of marriage should be left up to state law can be reconciled with 1967's Loving v. Virginia, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that invalidated state bans on interracial marriages and whether that should have been left a state matter.

This is basic stuff. Sen. Hagan has in fact sponsored anti-discrimination measures at the state level, but for whatever reason, she can't manage the gumption to state her positions on the above for publication. A simple "Yes" or "No" would have been clear. Follow up questions to the campaign were not only not answered, but not acknowledged in any way, as I said above.

If HRC is looking at who would be the best candidate on our issues, we already have a non-responsive fossil sitting in that seat right now-- Elizabeth Dole. No matter what you think of Jim Neal, he has been both responsive and clear on our issues, and Kay Hagan has been MIA.

CHUCK SCHUMER POWER PLAY IN NORTH CAROLINA DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY?

Not unlike last cycle, I've been hearing from quite a few grassroots candidates that the Inside-the-Beltway Democratic committees are surreptitiously working against them in primaries or, where there are no primaries, ignoring or even being hostile to their campaigns. Earlier today we talked about the progressive Democrat, Roger Waun, running against rubber stamp loon Mac Thornberry in northern Texas and why he is so angry at the DCCC. The DSCC likes to brag to candidates that they're not like the DCCC and that they don't play favorites. This has never been true and it certainly isn't true this year.

Jim Neal is a Blue America-endorsed candidate who wants to take on Senator Dole in North Carolina. Although DSCC head Chuck Schumer claims, rather ingenuously, that he stays neutral in hotly contested primaries, there are at least two big ones this year where he is backing Insider Establishment candidates who give every indication that they will not support core Democratic initiatives. Kentucky's Bruce Lunsford has been a consistent supporter of Republican candidates and has been judged by Kentucky Democrats in the past to have proven himself unworthy of their votes. Still, Schumer has muscled aside other candidates and brow-beaten Democratic support groups and some unions into backing the same Lunsford they have loathed and campaigned against in the past. Ironically, Kentucky has a real progressive, grassroots Democrat, Greg Fischer, in this race-- running on a platform that clearly and authentically contrasts with incumbent Mitch McConnell's.

There is a similar situation in North Carolina, where Schumer seems to feel that voters aren't sophisticated enough to elect a progressive candidate, Jim Neal, who, among other things, is openly gay. Schumer twisted the arm of a mediocre insider, Kay Hagan, to get into the race after she had bowed out. And now, he has the DSCC, which is officially "neutral," signaling Democratic donors to support her and not Jim. This is standard operating procedure for the DSCC and DCCC. Schumer got slapped down when he tried the same tactic against populist Jon Tester in the 2006 Montana primary that pitted Jon Tester against an establishment shill Schumer was backing. Schumer's shill was slaughtered in the primary and Tester, of course, went on to defeat the Republican incumbent. Rahm Emanuel tried the same tricks in the House where he attempted to ax John Hall and Jerry McNerney with establishment insiders who would never have been able to inspire the kind of grassroots support to beat the incumbents the way Hall and McNerney did.

But insiders like Schumer never learn. You can't beat a Republican with a Democrat who acts like a Republican. On issue after issue Jim Neal's positions clearly contrast to those of Elizabeth Dole's, while Kay Hagan's are pretty much... more of the same, just not as terrible. Schumer has promised to stay neutral in this race, which would be an excellent idea because polls show the two candidates in a dead heat. But this morning I got a copy of a letter from James Spencer, president of the Campaign Network which works for the Jim Neal campaign, to the executive director the DSCC. Spencer, who told me he's run up against some rough campaigns in the past 35 years of electoral work, but never as bad as this, gave me permission to reprint it.

J.B. Poersch
Executive Director,
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
120 Maryland Avenue NE
Washington, D.C. 20002

April 14, 2008

Dear Mr. Poersch:

I am writing to follow up on a phone call I placed to you regarding the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Jim Neal, Democratic candidate for the U. S. Senate in the North Carolina primary.

Mr. Neal is running a strong grassroots campaign and is tied in the polls with State Senator Kay Hagan.

However, you wouldn’t know it by reading the DSCC web site.

The DSCC site includes numerous newspaper articles about Senator Hagan, but none about Mr. Neal. The Race Profile for North Carolina features a positive summary of Senator Hagan’s campaign, but Mr. Neal is mentioned only in passing, lumped together with three minor candidates who have not mounted serious campaigns.

This is not an insignificant oversight and will have a serious impact on the Jim Neal campaign. As you know, would-be donors to Mr. Neal are likely to check the DSCC web site for an evaluation of the race. The inaccurate description and the fact that Mr. Neal is all but missing from the official DSCC synopsis of the Senate race serves to discourage donors from writing a check.

My staff has provided the DSCC staff with press coverage of the Neal campaign and other material to facilitate updating the DSCC site. Betsy Lin on the Regional Desk, responding to repeated phone calls by my staff member Curtis Ellis, told him that web site issues were "an internal matter" and that she had no say over what was posted. Consequently, Mr. Ellis then spoke with DSCC Political Director Martha McKenna, who told him the Neal campaign had "more important things to worry about" than what appears on the DSCC web site.

My understanding and concern is that Ms. McKenna was dismissive of the request, and repeatedly and pointedly refused to say that the DSCC site would be updated to give Mr. Neal fair and equal treatment.

This is particularly troubling in light of assurances the DSCC made to both myself and Mr. Neal.

As you recall, in our November 1, 2007 meeting at DSCC headquarters in Washington D.C., attended by Mr. Neal, myself, Ms. McKenna, and Chuck Wolfe of the Victory Fund, you assured us that Mr. Neal would receive equal access to services from the DSCC. And on February 13, Senator Schumer reassured Daily Kos readers the DSCC hasn’t endorsed in the primary.

These assurances notwithstanding, I understand the DSCC has the prerogative to endorse any candidate it chooses, at any time and for any reason. If that is the case, please say so openly.

Millions of voters across the country are looking to our Democratic Party and its leaders to set an example and encourage participatory, grassroots democracy in our nation.

I would hope that the DSCC would allow the people of North Carolina to choose their Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate without interference and favoritism from Washington.

With fewer than 30 days remaining before North Carolina’s primary, I look forward to your timely response. I am posting a copy of this letter which you should receive tomorrow.

There are many ways to donate to candidates these days without going through the DSCC or the DCCC. ActBlue has collected over $43,000,000 from grassroots donors for Democratic candidates. It's a much better way to donate and it cuts out the sleazy would be king makers like Schumer and Emanuel and puts the money directly into the hands of the candidates' campaigns. On the Blue America ActBlue page, for example, you can donate to Jim Neal or to Greg Fischer or, better yet, to both of them. If you do it today, add one cent as a message to Chuck Schumer to allow Democrats in North Carolina and Kentucky to pick their own nominees. They know better than he does how to defeat Elizabeth Dole and Mitch McConnell.

NORTH CAROLINA DEMOCRATS CAN OPT FOR A REAL CHOICE AND A REAL CHANGE OR... FOR MORE OF THE SAME

Same, same

The North Carolina primary is only a month away. Obama is way out ahead of the Insider candidate who is frantically peppering him with vicious Rovian smears to try to damage his momentum. But in a Democratic primary these tactics backfire and the more the Insiders attack, the lower their polling numbers sink. When will they learn? May 6 is also important for North Carolina Democrats because it is the day they pick the candidate to go up against one of Bush's most pathetic rubber stamp lemmings, Senator Liddy Dole. Blue America has strongly endorsed grassroots progressive Jim Neal. Neal is being challenged by another Insider, Kay Hagan, who was recruited by Chuck "Lizard Brain" Schumer who doesn't think North Carolina voters are sophisticated enough to elect an openly gay men to the Senate. So far Jim has been holding his own in polls-- and even beat the Republican-lite Hagan in a straw poll, 54-46%. And he beat her in one of the most conservative districts in the state, the 10th CD, home of the diminutive neo-fascist congressman and betrayer of military secrets, Patrick McHenry.

The clueless Hagan, whose positions mirror Dole's and Bush's in many areas, has chosen to avoid debates with the articulate Jim Neal and is blanketing the state with slick-- and very expensive-- TV spots (paid for by special interests lobbyists, of course, who are eager to see her elected where she will work for them instead of working families).

Jim is supporting Obama for president and Hagan is frightened and laying low, though Clinton surrogates are campaigning for her.

North Carolina media has taken note of Hagen's disingenuous campaign. Friday the Ashville Citizen-Times reported that Hagan has refused to participate in a serious, televised debate.

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Kay Hagan declined an invitation Friday to participate in the only televised debate her campaign was considering, frustrating her chief rival for the party's nomination.

The campaign of Jim Neal responded sharply, saying the state senator from Greensboro is trying to buy an election victory with television ads and is avoiding a discussion of the issues.
"Sen. Hagan's cynical and disingenuous refusal to debate flies in the face of her claim to be a candidate of change," Neal spokesman Curtis Ellis said.

The Democratic front-runners have only participated in one debate, hosted by the League of Women Voters and Public Radio East late on a Friday night last month. That meeting did not allow the candidates to counter each other's answers or provide rebuttals, but Neal tried on several occasions to contrast himself with Hagan.

Jim has asked Hagen to debate from the instant she was lured by Schumer into the race. But the DSCC is advising her that she will lose the primary in a landslide if TV viewers see trying to debate him. Schumer is frantic to keep the race as undercover as he can so that he doesn't wind up with another embarrassment when he attempted to slip a Republican-lite Democrat into the Montana Senate in 2006, only to be rebuffed and made to look like a fool and a tool. Jim's campaign claims Hagen's spinning of why she is afraid to debate isn't fooling anyone. "Hagan wants to buy this election with TV ads and avoid a real discussion."

Senator Hagan’s campaign strategy is to raise more money, avoid legitimate debate and blanket the airwaves with television ads. It is typical Washington politics-as-usual and it amounts to selling our elections to the highest bidder.

Senator Hagan’s cynical and disingenuous refusal to debate flies in the face of her claim to be a candidate of change.

Political candidates and elected officials are supposed to answer questions from, not dictate terms to, an independent news media. We’ve had enough of the latter from the Bush Administration.

Progressives who would like to help Jim Neal challenge the Big Money Insiders of both political Establishments can donate directly to his campaign through our Blue America ActBlue page. Democrats, like Jim, who offer a clear contrast to the reactionary Republican agenda beat Republican incumbents like Dole. "Me-too" Democrats, who buy into GOP policies, like Hagan, never, never beat Republicans. There are only two choices in North Carolina-- Jim Neal a sensible and independent-minded progressive or Liddy Dole, a robotic Bush era throwback.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH JAMES CARVILLE?

We've tried to keep out of the vituperative aspects of the fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Personally I voted for Obama, although the decision wasn't a slam dunk. I think they're both decent candidates-- though neither is great, until compared to trash like Bush or McCain-- and that each has some serious drawbacks for committed progressives. Each also represents something symbolic that is awe-inspiring-- Hillary, the shattering of the ultimate glass ceiling for every woman in America (and much of the world) and Obama, the triumph of hope over hopelessness, despair and societal impotence. Her overall voting record is slightly better than his. Hers is moderate leaning towards progressive. His is moderate and not leaning nearly as progressive. On the progressive scale among Democrats, Hillary is the 29th of 50 and Obama is the 40th, down there with problematic Democrats like Tom Carper (DE), Max Baucus (MT) and Byron Dorgan (ND), not as supportive of progressive legislation as-- hold your breath-- Ken Salazar (CO) but a bit more progressive than Blanche Lincoln (AR) and Claire McCaskill (MO). Neither of them has a voting record like an actual progressive, such as Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Ben Cardin (MD), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Barbara Boxer (CA), or Dick Durbin (IL). Even the always suspect Dianne Feinstein has a generally better record than either of them.

What ultimately made me cast my vote for Obama-- the tiebreaker, more or less-- was the sleaziness and corruption she's surrounded herself with. He may not be ideal either and his voting record is too moderate for my tastes but she is the DLC and people she chose to run her campaign are nearly as bad as the people driving the Double Talk Express-- and not nearly as smart or ruthless. It goes beyond just McAuliffe and Penn and Wolfson, 3 especially bad actors inside the Democratic party. The whole upper echelon of her campaign is all about looking backward instead of looking forward.

James Carville is the perfect example. Forget that he served as the conduit for information about the Kerry campaign to Cheney via his wife. Forget that he tried engineering the replacement of the popular and successful-- and elected-- DNC Chairman Howard Dean with the unpopular, unsuccessful and electorally defeated reactionary Harold Ford. Just go to his latest outburst, denouncing New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson as a "Judas."

Richardson was all torn up between personal loyalty and affection for the Clintons and doing what he knew was the right thing for his country. To a slime-bucket insider like Carville, that makes him a Judas Iscariot, someone who betrayed Jesus, God, mankind... I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton because her campaign-- and presumably the plans for her administration-- are filled with people like James Carville.

Carville was at the Young Democrats convention in North Carolina yesterday. I hope he didn't charge them as much as he charged me when I hired him to entertain at a convention for my company a few years ago, but I noticed that any young Democrats who wanted to hear him spewing his poison had to pay $50 to get in. I imagine it was all about how people should vote for Hillary, in a state where Obama is polling over 20 points ahead of her. But then he went further. He endorsed the Insider, anti-grassroots hack, Kay Hagan in a way that purposely made it seem like she was the nominee of the party, when in truth she's only the nominee of the Lizard Man and the lobbyists. The progressive grassroots candidate for the Democratic nomination, Jim Neal, was in the room and he loudly reminded Carville and the Insiders that "We have primaries here in North Carolina. We don't have coronations... It was the first time I've ever seen him quiet," Neal said. I guess in Carville-World, Neal, who has also endorsed Obama is another Judas.

JIM NEAL ENDORSES OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT AND SUGGESTS A UNITY TICKET WITH HILLARY AS VP

It's a foregone conclusion that Hillary is going to win-- and win big-- in Pennsylvania. It's not so much that Governor Rendell is using his power of persuasion to convince voters there to join him in backing his candidate, as much as it is... other factors. My old friend Steve was born and raised in rural Pennsylvania and then started a rock band and moved to New York. Several years ago he moved back to the New Hope area and bought a house. I've been trying to convince him and his partner, Stan, to do a fundraiser at their big sprawling farm for Patrick Murphy. They want to and a few weeks ago Stan figured he should re-register to vote in Pennsylvania like Steve had if, for no other reason, so he could vote for Rep. Murphy. Yesterday Steve sent me this note:

Stan has been trying to switch his registration to vote in Pennsylvania for a couple weeks while we are out here in CA. The PA online voter registration site has been down and they just put up a message today, the last day to register, saying that it won't be fixed before the deadline and that you should now mail in a registration form. hmmmm.

Doesn't quite measure up to the 100% pro-Hillary precincts in Harlem and Bedford-Stuyvesant but... Rendell's no piker and it's a start. And even as Clinton starts parroting Fox News talking points about Rev, Wright, Obama isn't giving up in Pennsylvania, not by a long shot, and the SEIU is doing some innovative get out the vote work on his behalf there.

Obama is hoping for a boost in North Carolina a couple of weeks after Pennsylvania. He and Hillary are doing an ANC-TV debate on April 16 in Philadelphia and he's agreed to do a CBS-TV debate in North Carolina on April 19. According to an AP report today, Hillary may not want to do a North Carolina debate.

Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, once so eager to debate she ran two ads questioning why her rival wouldn't, has yet to say whether she'll debate Sen. Barack Obama in North Carolina next month.

Both presidential candidates plan to participate in an ABC News debate on April 16 in Philadelphia. Pennsylvania holds it primary days later, on April 22. Obama also has agreed to a debate April 19 hosted by CBS in North Carolina. North Carolina holds its primary May 6.

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said Monday that the campaign has not made a decision about the CBS debate and is still working through the details.

Meanwhile, Obama's North Carolina campaign got a huge boost when the grassroots progressive in the U.S. Senate primary, Jim Neal, endorsed him. Neal, like Obama, has tremendous appeal to reform-minded Democrats and independents who are not part of the traditional power structure. He's running against an Insider party hack being shoved down the throats of North Carolina voters by Clinton-backer Chuck Schumer.

Here's the text of Jim Neal's endorsement of Obama:

Today I am endorsing Senator Barack Obama for President. In my campaign for U.S. Senate, I have been traveling to towns and cities across North Carolina for the past 6 months, listening to people in churches and schools, in their homes and at cafes.

What these folks all have in common is that they want a political system that involves regular citizens, brings us together and works for the common good. They know America is a great country, and they know our political system is broken. They feel in their hearts we cannot turn to people who are part of the broken system to fix it.

They want a leader who can bring our country together and move us forward.

I have seen Barack Obama show the sincerity and optimism we need to bring us together and make every American proud to be an American.

Barack Obama has inspired a new generation and reinvigorated our democracy.

Barack Obama has reached across lines of race, gender, age and party affiliation-- all the categories that have divided our country for too long. He has spoken forthrightly in a candid and humane manner. He has demonstrated the willingness to confront issues, rather than repeating conventional wisdom and poll-tested messages.

I believe Senator Obama is best able to create the new politics that people desire, a new politics that is as great and as inclusive as our state and our nation. That is why I am adding my voice to those supporting Barack Obama for President.

I’ve met with and talked with people-- on the road and on my own campaign-- who are passionately committed to Hillary Clinton.

It is important that we as Democrats stop fighting amongst ourselves and prepare for the fight against John McCain, and I happen to believe the best way to do that is to come together and support a ticket that has Barack Obama as President and Hillary Clinton as vice president.

Some may say this unity ticket won’t happen. But this year especially we have seen how important it is for us to work for what we want, not just settle for what we think we can get.

Sounds like a smart guy, don't you think? Jim is up against a well-funded Democratic Insider in his primary and then will have to face one of the lobbyists' favorite Republican stooges, Elizabeth Dole. Maybe today would be a good day to tell Jim Neal you agree with him by making a donation, even a small donation, to his campaign. He's been endorsed by Blue America and you can donate at the ActBlue page. Obama looks like he is far ahead of Hillary in North Carolina. One poll shows a 21% lead for Obama after he successfully weathered the right-wing Jeremiah Wright smear/virtual assassination attempt.

BROOKLYN LIZARD-- A DAY IN THE GLORIOUS LIFE OF CHUCK "MEAT AND POTATOES" SCHUMER

Today's Hill has a puff piece on the Senate's most shameless publicity hound, Chuck Schumer, a Democrat with the kind of reptilian brain usually only found in Republicans. Reporter Aaron Blake is going to have to get the excrement sandblasted off his head. He makes Schumer sound almost as mythical as Rahm Emanuel or Tom DeLay!

Lizard Man is modestly claiming he might not be able to deliver a 60/40 Senate split-- and, by the way, he still defends his vote to confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General.

While Schumer has shone as DSCC chairman, he went through a rough patch as a legislator in recent months over the man he suggested the White House nominate as attorney general.

A former federal judge and a fellow New Yorker, Mukasey appeared to be sailing through his confirmation hearings in October until he struggled to explain whether he believed waterboarding constitutes illegal torture under domestic and international law.

Mukasey said he could not answer since the CIA had not briefed him on any U.S. program that employs the simulating drowning technique. His hedging infuriated Democrats.

Under enormous pressure, Schumer stood by Mukasey, and he continues to do so today.

“I had a difficult time,” Schumer said. “I don’t mind people having disagreeing views, but … a lot of the blogs said there was no courage.

“But believe me,” he added, “the easy decision for me would have been to go against Mukasey. I just thought it was wrong.”

Schumer, along with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), voted for Mukasey, saying he represented the best possible Bush administration successor to Alberto Gonzales to restore the integrity of the Justice Department. Their votes allowed the nomination to advance from the Judiciary Committee to the full Senate.

“It became a symbolic issue, you know: ‘Vote against torture,’ ” Schumer said. “I tend not to be a symbolic politician. I’m a meat-and-potato politician.”

They didn't get into how he feels about having supported Joe Lieberman in 2006 and how that old chicken has come home to roost of late.

[P]ressure is nothing new for the man who oh-so-narrowly delivered the Senate to his party in 2006, and it’s clear Schumer is enjoying the ride and wearing each of his hats with pride.

...“Here’s what I think: We get 55, 56, 57, 58, you will pick up enough Republicans on any single issue,” Schumer said, adding: "Yeah, you’d have to make certain compromises, but not give away the store." [Compromises, of course, are Schumer's stock in trade... deal making, triangulation, that which allows him to be Senator Wall Street and still represent one of the deepest blue, progressive states in the nation.]

Nothing has served Schumer quite as well in his campaign role as his pragmatism and heavy hand.

Though irritating to certain parts of the party [the Democratic wing], Schumer has consistently picked his horses early, largely based on their electability, and rode them through to the finish line.

No mention of Montana DLC hack John Morrison here, who grassroots Montanans told Schumer to shove up his Insider butt, nominating their own populist candidate, Jon Tester, and then beating a very Schumer-like Republican in November, Conrad Burns. Instead he recounts the triumphs of Bob Casey, Claire McCaskill and, oddly, since I don't recall Schumer backing him, Jim Webb. [Update: a friendly DSCC employee reminded me that Schumer did indeed get behind Webb early on.] And then Blake writes about the corporate shills Schumer is trying to foist on Democrats in North Carolina and Kentucky, Kay Hagan and Bruce Lunsford. He recruited Hagan because he insists a gay candidate-- Jim Neal-- can't win Jesse Helms' old seat and thinks the way to beat Elizabeth Dole is to confuse voters by presenting them with a candidate so similar that no one can tell them apart. That worked out real well in Tennessee in 2006, when Schumer's reactionary candidate, Harold Ford, was so much like a Republican that the voters just figured they might as well stick with an actual Republican. Schumer is trying to replay that same scenario in North Carolina and Kentucky.

In Kentucky he has been personally-- and quite unethically-- clearing the field for the state's most detested Democrat, Bruce Lunsford (a Zell Miller kind of reactionary) and strong-arming local unions-- who know better-- into endorsing the hated Lunsford over a genuine Democrat Greg Fischer. When asked if he takes heat for interfering in local primaries to pick reactionary candidates, Schumer went right to Kentucky. "Some people are very upset about [Iraq war veteran Andrew] Horne [dropping out] in Kentucky. … We obviously pick candidates who are in the Democratic mainstream, and we like candidates who will be good senators, but winning matters. And so, do I occasionally take some flak? Sure. But that’s part of the game and I don’t mind it. That’s my job." Actually, it isn't. He's supposed to be neutral.

Even one candidate Schumer didn’t initially like, comedian Al Franken, has won him over.

The Democratic race to face Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) is now all but clear with the exit of attorney Mike Ciresi-- a development Schumer said he was pleased with-- and Republicans were quick to go on the offensive this week, distributing a video of Franken faking an Asian accent.

“To be honest with you, I was really worried when [Franken] first announced,” Schumer said. “I was worried that his jokes would get him in trouble, but more importantly that he was just running from the left and not serious. He is a very serious candidate, and he gets it and he knows how to talk to average people.”

Notice the reptilian brain at work: "more importantly that he was just running from the left and not serious." I wonder if he meant that running from the left (i.e., representing regular people instead of business interests) is something he doesn't like AND that he doesn't like someone he judges not to be "not serious" (the same tact Coleman is taking on his attacks against Franken; Coleman and Schumer grew up within blocks of each other-- as did Ken, Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, and myself.) He also marvels that Coleman knows how to talk to "average people." Imagine that; maybe he can give lessons when he gets to the Senate.

My favorite part of the story was when we are reminded that "Schumer is up for reelection in 2010." Maybe someone who runs from the left and knows how to talk with regular people will decide to take him on in a primary. If you hear of anyone considering it, send them to Blue America.

VICTORY IN THE HOUSE-- BUSH LOSES ON RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY

The battle moves to the Senate

First the good news: this morning the House voted for an updated FISA law which stripped out retroactive immunity for criminal acts by members of the Bush Regime and their cronies in the Telecom industry who spied on American citizens without warrants. Speaker Pelosi summed it up well enough:

"Why would the Administration oppose a judicial determination of whether the companies already have immunity? There are at least three explanations:

"First, the President knows that it was the Administration's incompetence in failing to follow the procedures in statute that prevented immunity from being conveyed-- that's one possibility. They simply didn't do it right. Second, the Administration's legal argument that the surveillance requests were lawfully authorized was wrong; or public reports that the surveillance activities undertaken by the companies went far beyond anything about which any Member of Congress was notified, as is required by the law.

"None of these alternatives is attractive but they clearly demonstrate why the Administration's insistence that Congress provide retroactive immunity has never been about national security or about concerns for the companies; it has always been about protecting the Administration."

The final vote was 213-197-1. Last night the Republicans tried some silliness with a closed session debate that was much ado about nothing whatsoever. If anything, they convinced a few wavering conservative Democrats that their position was nothing but partisan hot air. Instead of the 21 defectors expected today, there were only 12 Democrats who crossed over to the Dark Side today (as well as one abstention). Not one single Republican voted in favor of the rule of law today.

The Democrats who joined the GOP on this were many of the regular suspects we have come to depend on to rubber stamp all Bush's most odious policies:

David Boren (D-OK)
Chris Carney (D-PA)
Jim Cooper (D-TN)
Tim Holden (D-PA)
Nick Lampson (D-TX)
Heath Shuler (D-NC)

The abstention came from Blue Dog Lincoln Davis (D-TN). The other Democrats who voted no, like Mike Capuano, Peter Welch and Dennis Kucinich, were protesting that the bill was too compromised and should have been even tougher.

Voting is still open in the Blue America vs Retroactive Immunity poll and both Chris Carney and Heath Shuler have been getting massive numbers of votes. It looks like we were able to help John Barrow (D-GA), Zack Space (D-OH), Leonard Boswell (D-IA), Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) remember that they have taken a pledge to uphold the Constitution, not to rubber stamp George W. Bush. We are still gratefully accepting contributions for an educational campaign in the district of the Bush Dog who wins the poll. Other Blue Dogs who signed the letter to Speaker Pelosi demanding the right to vote for retroactive immunity but who wound up not doing so today were: Allen Boyd (FL), Bud Cramer (AL), Jim Matheson (UT), Charlie Melancon (LA), Dennis Moore (KS), Earl Pomeroy (ND), Mike Ross (AR), and John Tanner (TN).

Virgil Goode, the corrupt and reactionary former Democrat in southern Virginia was adamant that the corporate criminals who fund his political campaigns be given immunity from the law for their criminal behavior. The Democrat running against him, Tom Perriello, issued a statement lauding the House leadership for resisting Bush, Goode and the GOP caucus:

"To protect our national security, what the intelligence community needs from us is our resources, not our rights. If the Bush Administration had spent its time and energy giving our brave intelligence officers the resources they needed, instead of undermining our Constitutional rights and giving breaks to telecom companies, our country would be much safer today."

And what about the Republicans who claim they are "moderate" and "independent?" Every single one of them abandoned the Constitution today and threw their lot in with Bush, Cheney, McCain and the lobbyists for the Telecom industry criminals. Today's biggest Republican hypocrites:
Mary Bono (R-CA)
David Dreier (R-CA)
Phil English (R-PA)
Vito Fossella (R-NY)
Tim Johnson (R-IL)
Peter King (R-NY)
Mark Kirk (R-IL)
Tom Reynolds (R-NY)
Dave Reichert (R-WA)
Chris Shays (R-CT)
Heather Wilson (R-NM).

The battle now moves back to the Senate, where there are even more conservative Democrats who have taken huge amounts of corporate bribes from the Telecoms and who are backing Bush and his Republican rubber stamps. Jim Neal is a Democrat running for the Senate against one of those rubber stamps (Elizabeth Dole)-- and, in the North Carolina primary, against a reactionary Democrat who has said she favors retroactive immunity, Kay Hagen-- and he responded to today's vote in the House very positively with a letter to North Carolina voters:

The latest FISA bill, approved by the House, is about protecting our Constitutional freedoms and our nation.
 
It is the duty of any elected official to protect the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic.
 
That is why I oppose any law that grants telecommunication companies retroactive immunity for collaborating with the Bush Administration's warrantless, illegal wiretapping of Americans' private conversations.
 
Our Constitution limits unchecked government power by giving the Courts and Congress the power to oversee the actions of the Executive Branch.
 
This Administration prefers to act in secret-- above the law and beyond the Constitution.
 
That's not what democracy is about folks. If Americans can't have privacy in their conversations, then where can we have privacy? What's next?
 
I'd bet that any agreement the telecom companies made to provide customers' private records to the Administration included a guarantee that the government, not the companies, would be responsible for any lawsuits that might arise. I've worked with many Fortune 500 companies-- and their lawyers are smart enough to require that kind of legal immunity.
 
The Administration, again, is trying to smokescreen its shady backroom dealings from the American people which it profoundly distrusts.

Maybe someone needs to get Jay Rockefeller to watch this 18 second video of Donna Edwards summarizing what happened in the House of Representatives:

GOP FAILS TO MAKE TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH PERMANENT

John McBush's mini-Me, South Carolina shill Lindsey Graham, offered an admendment in the Senate today to make Bush's tax cuts for the rich permanent. Even his butt-buddy Lieberman couldn't vote for it. And not one Democrat did. On top of that, two Republicans were too embarrassed by the gross unfairness to go along with the GOP on this. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and George Voinovich (R-OH) were the only Republicans today to stand up with the Senate Democrats for the middle class.

Among the Republican rubber stamps who decided that what middle and working class Americans need to protect them from the impending recession is to make sure the wealthiest 5% of us pay obscenely low taxes (forever) were a gaggle of reactionaries kissing up to big campaign donors in preparation for likely losses to Democratic challengers in November. Among the Republicans who voted for the richest 5% and against the 95% of normal Americans were:

John Cornyn (R-TX)
Norm Coleman (R-MN)
Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Elizabeth Dole (R-NC)
Gordon Smith (R-OR)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
and, of course, John W. McCain (R-AZ).

I asked two of our Blue America-endorsed candidates for the Senate to give me their perspectives since each, Rick Noriega (D-TX) and Jim Neal (D-NC), is running against a reflexive rubber stamp who, of course, supports more tax cuts for the wealthy. Rick Noriega thinks the Bush-Cornyn agenda has served Texas and the rest of the country very poorly.

"Texans have had enough of a government run by and for the richest few. Unlike John Cornyn, I will work for working families and not simply the privileged elite. 

We need a change in leadership in Washington to end our addiction to skyrocketing deficits, which have increased by 42 percent under the current Bush/Cornyn administration. I support putting our financial house back in order by eliminating obsolete federal programs and questionable subsidies, closing corporate loopholes, cutting special-interests earmarks, limiting no-bid contracts, and reversing tax cuts that only benefit a very small subset of the very wealthy."

All the populist and progressive Democrats endorsed by Blue America for the Senate are backing real steps to put America's finances back in order after the irresponsible and profligate spending spree of the Bush Regime. Like Rick, Jim Neal wants to see real action to help ease the burden on ordinary American families who are starting to suffer from the years of Bush economic policies, policies that were completely rubber stamped by the clueless candidate he is running against.

“We have a monstrous debt to foreign bankers and wars raging in foreign lands, which the working people of this country are expected to pay for with their tax dollars and their blood, while the rich refuse to make any sacrifice whatsoever.

True conservatives know we couldn’t afford Bush’s tax cut for the wealthiest in the first place; there is no reason to make them permanent now, especially with a recession brought upon us by the very same people who benefit from this tax cut. Senator Dole and my Republican-lite primary challenger look the other way while their wealthy, elitist donors evade taxes, ship our jobs overseas, and hide their money in off-shore tax shelters.

Any tax cuts should go to the hard working, middle class Americans who spend their money at the corner store.”

It may take many years to straighten out the mess created by 8 years of Bush but unless we replace rubber stamps like Cornyn and Dole with forward-thinking progressives like Rick Noriega and Jim Neal, we'll never even get started. Each of these guys is up against an entrenched-- though disliked-- incumbent flush with corporate millions. Each of our guys is counting on grassroots support from Americans who believe, like they do, that America can be a much better place again. If you can, please consider helping Rick and Jim afford to get their messages out in Texas and North Carolina, two states where people are ready to go from red to blue.

DSCC LIZARD MAN STRIKES AGAIN-- SCHUMER FEEDS LAZY NY TIMES REPORTER FAKE FACTS

I'm sure many NY Times readers were cheered by the story in this morning's edition about how Democrats have a shot at a 60-member majority, not quite the good old days of 1937 when there were only 16 Republicans in the Senate, but good enough to toss Lieberman out of the caucus on his ear and good enough to start cleaning up the massive damage 8 years of Bush and his allies have caused. Less conspicuous is the little clickable "multimedia" graphic on the left. If you do click it, you find Schumer's paw prints all over it. I don't know if David Herszenhorn, the writer of the article, put it together or some other Times functionary put the nicely laid-out but completely misleading information for the chart together. Maybe it was an intern. Maybe Herszenhorn or, more likely, one of his editors, shouted, "Hey, you, intern, call Schumer's office at the DSCC and ask them who their candidates are in these fahkaktah races."

And that's exactly what the Times readers are reading today-- the list of Inside the Beltway hacks and shills Schumer is backing in races with hot primaries, not the grassroots candidates. So a Democratic financial contributor-- all the Senator from Wall Street has ever cared about-- reading his morning Times will be falsely led to believe that Kentucky Democrats have endorsed someone they truly loathe and have always voted against, Republican-lite Bruce Lunsford (the man Schumer is trying to force on Bluegrass State Democrats, not because he thinks he can win-- Schumer is no dummy and he knows Lunsford has exactly zero chance-- but so that Lunsford will use his great fortune and spend millions of dollars tying down McConnell and making him spend his huge lobbyist-supplied warchest in Kentucky instead of Colorado or New Mexico or Virginia or Minnesota or Maine). The Times neglects to mention that there is an actual Democratic candidate, polling at least as well as Lunsford, Greg Fischer.

Similarly, Jim Neal, the grassroots candidate in North Carolina, doesn't exist for a Times reader. It's all about the Liddy Dole mirror image Big Money insider Schumer dragged into the race, Kay Hagan. My friends in Oregon tell me there's a hot primary battle between two excellent candidates going on there. If you're a New York Times reader today, you only know that Schumer's guy, State House Speaker Jeff Merkley, is the "Democrat." At least Merkley is a Democrat, with genuine Democratic values and positions, like Steve Novick, the other candidate the Times didn't bother to mention.

Oddly, in Minnesota, the high profile race to find the candidate who will retire rubber stamp creep Norm Coleman-- who, by the way, grew up within blocks of where I grew up and where the Lizard Man grew up-- doesn't name a candidate but instead says, properly, "to be determined."

The Times might argue, disingenuously, that asterisks next to Hagan's name and Lunsford's name that indicate there are "other challengers in field," satisfies complaints of grassroots Democrats. It doesn't. Schumer thinks you can beat a rubber stamp Republican incumbent by putting forward a candidate with similarly reactionary views. He's wrong. He should have learned his lesson in 2006 in Montana when he tried shoving DLC shill, John Morrison, down voters throats, only to be laughed out of Dodge, see grassroots populist Jon Tester win the primary and go on-- by drawing sharp contrasts, not by playing "me too"-- beat the incumbent Republican. Schumer also backed DLC hack Harold Ford, the only high profile Democrat to lose last cycle. Why? Because Tennessee voters couldn't tell which candidate was more Republican, Corker or Ford. They figured they might as well go for the Truth-in-Advertising guy and picked Corker in an otherwise huge Democratic year. Schumer is authoring similar scenarios in North Carolina and Kentucky. The Lizard must be stopped. This media disinformation the Times bought into, is part of a strategy Insiders like Schumer and Emanuel always use to sell the inevitability of their hacks and shills. Shame on the New York Times for the laziness.

WHO WOULD VOTE FOR LEAD PAINT IN CHILDREN'S TOYS? THE WHOLE GOP-- IF THEY COULD GET AWAY WITH IT

Yesterday the Senate passed--overwhelmingly-- H.R. 4040, the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act, which many people think of as the act that will protect our children from lead paint and other harmful substances. Basically the bill gives the Consumer Product Safety Commission, a regulatory agency, more resources and authority to catch dangerous products before they can cause harm, something Republicans always oppose as an outgrowth of their laissez faire ideology and their predilection to give corporate donors dangerous self-policing leeway.

Only 13 die-hard right-wing fanatics-- all Republicans, of course-- voted against it. How is that possible, you ask? Let me explain. The American people are demanding this bill to protect their children from the unregulated greed and callous selfishness of big corporations which care more  about their bottom lines than about dead or sick children. So, when has that ever stopped a Republican from voting in the interests of the Big Big lobbyists who bribe them with campaign contributions? Well, if you look at the list of who voted yesterday, you will notice that not a single Republican up for re-election in November-- regardless of past votes against this sort of legislation-- have the cajones to oppose it. Oh, wait... I'm wrong. Two kooks did: John Barrasso and Michael Enzi but they're both from Wyoming and... do they care there? Even the most fanatic right-wing maniacs like James Inhofe (R-OK, who absented himself from the chamber for a few moments while the vote was being taken), John Cornyn (R-TX), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Ted Stevens (R-AK)... even Miss McConnell, the ultimate proponent of "free" trade with China (meaning free of any restrictions or regulations whatsoever), all voted with the Democrats yesterday. Why? They are all afraid of angry voters. Their ideological twins who are not up for re-election-- like Tom Coburn (R-OK), Jim DeMint (R-SC), David Diapers Vitter (R-LA), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Richard Burr (R-NC), etc all voted against the bill.

But Republicans got to show their true colors earlier in the day when amendments, designed to weaken the bill, were being considered. By a much narrower margin the Senate rejected Vitter's amendment that would have given courts discretion to require losers of consumer product lawsuits to pay attorneys' fees. The bill allows state attorneys general to collect attorneys' fees but does not allow manufacturers that prevail to do the same (i.e., to collect from taxpayers). It lost 56-39. In the amendment process, which is never reported by the media, Republican reactionaries felt safer in letting their hair down and their freak flags fly. The right wing fanatics who feared voter retribution if they opposed the final bill, voted as one giant rubber stamp with Vitter, including James Inhofe, Elizabeth Dole, John Cornyn, Lamar Alexander, Saxby Chambliss, Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, John Sununu, Norm Coleman, Susan Collins, et al.

Same story on an equally lame amendment by Cornyn which would have prohibited attorneys general from hiring outside counsel and paying them contingent on the monetary outcome of a consumer safety trial. Cornyn, of course, wanted to put up as many roadblocks to consumer safety prosecutions as possible. All the Democrats plus 3 Republicans and Lieberman voted against Cornyn's poison pill. McCain, of course, was off sucking up to religious fanatics and lobbyists but the rest of the GOP supported Cornyn; all of them.

Jim Neal is a Democrat seeking to replace one of these sneaky Republicans who helped in an attempt to gut the bill, Elizabeth Dole (R-NC). Neal, a father of two, feels particularly strongly about this legislation and has been talking with voters about it for weeks. This morning he told DWT that he found it difficult to believe "that Americans tolerate a single member of Congress who is so blatantly in-the-pocket of special interests that they'd frustrate the CPSC from protecting consumer welfare over corporate self-interests that contribute to career politicians like Senator Dole."

"This bill begins to correct the neglect and starvation of the public health watchdogs that has occurred under 3 decades of rigid Republican rule. Ronald Reagan said 'government is the problem.' Republican ideologues gutted the CPSC, FEMA and agencies like them, staffed them with partisan lackeys and then used their failure as evidence to prove Reagan's maxim. 

We need to take our government back from the special interests, and make sure the cop on the block is watching out for us, not bought off to look the other way."

The choice in North Carolina is very clear-- you either get a Liddy Dole using subterfuge to allow her corporate donors to poison us-- and our children-- at will, or you get Jim Neal who sees the problems clearly and wants to take them on and solve them. Last week Blue America endorsed Jim Neal and we encourage you to donate what you can to his campaign through Blue America. Even a $5 or $10 donation will go a long way towards building a fund to counterbalance the big money that is rolling into Dole's campaign coffers from K Street lobbyists who appreciate her blind support for their masters' selfish interests.

NORTH CAROLINA ELECTORAL OVERVIEW (FEDERAL RACES)

The filing deadline for the North Carolina congressional races passed on Friday. The picture is now clear who exactly is running for what. As you may recall, this weekend Blue America endorsed Jim Neal, the progressive, grassroots candidate running for the U.S. Senate seat held by Bush rubber stamp Elizabeth Dole. (You can read the transcript of his two hour blog session with us here and if you'd like, you can contribute to his campaign here.) Before Jim gets to go head to head with Dole, he has to overcome the Republican-lite candidate of the Insider Establishment, Kay Hagan, a shallow and transparent Dole wannabe, as well as a truck driver named Duskin Lassiter, a podiatrist named Howard Stanley and a lawyer named Marcus Williams. Only Hagan-- a veritable money machine with deep connections to every lobbyist in Raleigh-- and Neal have raised any money, $536,000 and $215,000, respectively. She can depend on Big Business and special interests. He needs to count on regular folks who want to see real change. (As an aside, a perennial candidate named Peter DiLauro is challenging Dole in the Republican primary; she is expected to prevail and has already raised nearly $5 million. You see, if Hagan is lobbyist-connected in Raleigh, Dole is that times 50. She did an historically abysmal job as Chair of the RSCC-- and they couldn't get her out of there fast enough and replace her with John Ensign-- but she's used all the contacts she made there to fill her own coffers.) If you'd like to vote for Jim Neal today you can do it at the eQualityGiving website which will award $1,000 to whichever Democrat gets the most votes. When I voted a while ago, Jim was gigantically in the lead with 60% of the votes.

There are five congressional seats the Congressional Quarterly rate as worth watching. The big one is, of course, is in the 8th CD, a rematch between our old pal Larry Kissell and another pathetic Bush rubber stamp, Robin Hayes, who managed to hold on to his seat by just over 400 votes in 2006. Larry was virtually unknown and had no support from the DCCC. This time Emanuel is no longer running the D-Trip and Van Hollen is championing Larry big time. The Republican Establishment and lobbyists have pumped way over a million dollars into Hayes' desperate bid to hold the seat while grassroots Democrats have donated $400,000 in mostly small donations to Larry. He's done a great job of drawing sharp lines of distinction between himself and Hayes, especially on the unending war in Iraq, on helping military personnel and veterans, and on popular domestic issues like S-CHIP.

In the 11th CD reactionary Democrat Heath Shuler has the worst voting record of any freshman Democrat and voted so similarly to the right-wing Republican who he replaced, Charlie Taylor, that local Republicans are happy to keep him. When Rahm Emanuel needed a patsy to carry anti-immigrant legislation, he knew he could depend on Shuler to team up with Tom Tancredo on a bill. Unfortunately no Democrat has challenged Shuler in the primary. The Republicans running against him are like the 3 stooges and it looks like the Democratic caucus will be burdened with another 2 years of this worthless member.

On the other end of the spectrum, progressive incumbent Brad Miller (NC-13) is being challenged by a former state senator, Hugh Webster, a right winger but not one nearly as extremist as Vernon Robinson, the loon who managed to get only 36% in 2006 against Brad.

There are two Republican incumbents to watch. In NC-03 Walter Jones is one of the few Republicans in the House opposing endless war in Iraq. The GOP Establishment has targeted him for political extermination and they've recruited a slobbering wingnut, Joe McLaughlin, to go after him. Jones has $191,000 in his warchest and the wingnut has only managed to tuck away $30,000. It is expected, however, that independent expenditure groups like Club for Growth will dump money in the district to slime up Jones. The two Democrats in the race, Craig Weber and Marshall Adame, both former Marines, haven't managed to raise enough money to put up competitive campaigns so far.

And that brings us to the 10th, home of the only closeted gay Republican who has come under suspicion of murder (and in relation to a gay GOP prostitution ring he's involved with). McHenry, who has been a constant source of embarrassment for his district, is one of the only Republicans to score a zero on Progressive Punch's When the Chips Are Down ranking of congress-- indicating, basically, that he is far to the right of Mussolini and Hitler in his approach to governance. McHenry is being challenged by a mainstream conservative, a retired Air Force officer named Lance Simon who hasn't raised any money. The real hope for retiring McHenry-- other than an indictment in the Orlando murder case (which is unlikely to ever happen)-- is decorated Navy veteran Daniel Johnson.

"Wake Up Everybody" was the song Jim Neal was listening to when he made his mind up to run for the Senate against Dole. It's a great idea, not just for North Carolinians, either:

BLUE AMERICA WELCOMES JIM NEAL (D-NC)

Jim Neal and his son Graham

Enthusiastic progressives often suggest candidates for our Blue America endorsement. We encourage that. I have to say, though, that since the beginning of Blue America in 2005 no candidate has come close to the amount of requests that we've had in regard to today's guest, Jim Neal, who joins us at FDL at 2pm (EST). I've been talking with him on the phone for several months, following his campaign closely at Pam's House Blend and I have come to understand why people are so excited about the prospect of Jim Neal replacing Bush rubber stamp, Elizabeth Dole, in the U.S. Senate... in a seat once held by arch-reactionary Jesse Helms. The delicious irony however is just a small bonus. Jim Neal in the Senate would go a long way towards righting the wrongs that have been inflicted on our country in recent years by corporatist rule.

Before I turn this over to Jim, let me mention that not everyone is as enthusiastic as the North Carolina grassroots Democrats and I. Remember a couple years ago when Inside the Beltway characters like Rahm Emanuel at the DCCC and Chuck Schumer at the DSCC were axing progressive, anti-war and grassroots candidates in favor of their own brand of insiders? The grassroots fought hard for Jon Tester against a Schumer placement in Montanan and against Emanuelist shills who fought John Hall, Jerry McNerney, Carol Shea-Porter. We won those battles. Schumer urged a reluctant Insider, Kay Hagan, to run when he made the decision that North Carolina needed a someone to run against Dole who is... well, just like her. I asked Jim how he and Hagan are different.

The differences are pretty stark. There were only 4 instances that I know of where we have both responded to specific questions about issues at the federal level. First, we were both asked by the Raleigh News & Observer whether or not we would have voted for the appointment of Judge Mukasey as Attorney General. My opponent's response was that she didn't know... she wasn't in the Senate and didn't have access to the testimony... it wouldn't be appropriate for her to comment... and so on. My response was 'Hell, no!' I wouldn't support anybody who has to parse words about whether or not water-boarding is torture.

Another instance was when just recently, within the past 10 days, she announced that she favored retroactive immunity for Telecoms that had committed felony violations of the FISA law. I do not.

Third, she indicated that she is in favor of expansion of S-CHIP but not if it taxes tobacco companies. It was exactly what Senator Dole said when voting to uphold President Bush's veto. [Note: this was the same position several reactionary Democrats took in the debate-- all of whom eventually backed away from it except Georgia's Jim Marshall. Blue America helped convince North Carolina's Mike McIntyre and Bob Etheridge it wasn't a proper position for Democrats.]

In addition she explained her vote in the state senate to lower income tax rates on the wealthiest North Carolinians by saying that if we hadn't lowered income tax rates on the wealthiest they would have moved out of state and we would have... lost them as part of the tax base. It made me wonder if she gets to Washington she will vote to grant an extension to the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest people out fear that the richest Americans will move to the Cayman Islands. It struck me as somewhat nonsensical. Those are four very specific, very tangible points that will help people see the contrast between the two of us. Fundamentally, there's very little difference between her and Senator Dole. That's why she won't be able to beat Senator Dole. And that's why I will; I contrast so much with the Senator. The stances I'm taking are going to appeal to the Democratic base, to progressives, to young people who are turning out in record numbers, to the African-American community who is also turning out in record numbers and they're going to appeal to independent, unaffiliated voters. 70% of those voters in North Carolina are Democrats just looking for a reason to vote for a Democrat. And that's how I'm going to win.

What motivated Jim to run-- his campaign's principal underlying theme-- is his feeling that Congress has not been responsive to the people who own and pay for and fund our democracy. "I believe that special interests-- money-- has become the single most corrosive influence in our political system. The Senate has ignored the will of the people of this country. In 2008 I happen to be fortune, being on the right curve in terms of where the electorate is because this is a year of change. Changing the status quo in Washington equates to what voters are looking for: new brand of leaders-- people with fresh ideas from outside of the whole political bubble mindset that has gridlocked Washington. It's a problem for both political parties. An example would be the number of Democrats just willing to role over on that FISA vote last week; they completely rolled, the way they did when they voted to give George Bush the power to go to war in Iraq. I would have never voted for that. The person who can attest to where I stood on that is my son Winston because he was out on the streets in Manhattan protesting with me. I remember the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

Polling shows a dead heat in primary, although Hagan, as co-chair of the state Senate's Appropriations Committee, is able to depend on the big institutional money from political insiders and lobbyists. Jim is depending on the grassroots to help him get out his message, a message that shows the stark contrasts between himself and Dole and Hagan. Please consider making a donation to his campaign through the Blue America ActBlue page.

Yesterday, Jim made a little clip for us so we can get a better feeling for who he is and what he intends to do when he gets to Washington. Take a look:

DAN BESSE: COST-EFFECTIVE GRASSROOTS CAMPAIGNING

-By Noah

The 2008 campaign season has seen the growing development of campaign savvy when it comes to candidates getting their campaign message to a significantly large number of people. For every Rudy "Did I mention 9/11?" Giuliani who spent $40 MILLION to get just one delegate for his party's convention, there are an untold number of Dan Besses. Dan Besse is not running for national office, but he is running for Lt. Governor in the North Carolina Democratic Primary. He is not the only Democrat seeking the nomination but he has already gotten the nod from Progressive Democrats of NC and North Carolina's Conservation Council PAC. Dan is a progressive and an activist working effectively for change in a state that is rapidly changing itself. The question is; how do you reach potential voters with a short, concise message that tells the voter why they should vote for you, and, how do you do it without the proverbial big bag of money? How do you tell voters who you are, what you have done, and how you can make things better? One answer is this remarkable grassroots video clip by Frank Eaton entitled "One Simple Illustration." Eaton's clip is being spread virally throughout the state. No big ad budget. No expensive soundstage or actors. Just inspired creativity that illustrates how one man saw a problem with the corrupt status quo, fixed it on behalf of the people of his region, and can do so much more. It's a lesson in civics, in less than 2 minutes. And, it's working. Besse has pulled within 1 point of his better financed "insider" rivals for the nomination. The "impossible" can be accomplished through simple grass roots, cost-effective methods.




UPDATE: AND SPEAKING OF NORTH CAROLINA...

A friend of mine is a Larry Kissell volunteer. Kissell may be in a slighter better financial position than Besse, but he is running a very tight grassroots ship and certainly can't afford expensive polling. The SEIU commissioned one, however, and it shows Larry is already ahead of Bush rubber stamp Robin Hayes in their rematch for the congressional seat Hayes has served so poorly.

Since next week Jim Neal, the progressive Democrat running to replace another Bush rubber stamp in North Carolina, Elizabeth Dole, becomes our second endorsed candidate in the state, I asked how Jim's presence at the top of the ticket would effect Larry's race. Keep in mind that my friend has already made a generous donation to Jim's campaign.

"Dude, we buy lemons in bulk just for the lemonade. You've met us. It doesn't matter. Larry is going to win. Whether it's a woman or openly gay man on the ticket above, or an African American above that for President... Change is here my friend. Isn't it nice when strategic and inspirational meet? Kinda like the opposite of triangulation!"

THE ANTIDOTE TO NORTH CAROLINA'S RUBBER STAMP REPUBLICAN ELIZABETH DOLE: JIM NEAL

Jim Neal with NC blogger Pam Spaulding

Polls in North Carolina are showing a dead heat between progressive Jim Neal and insider Establishment Democrat, Kay Hagan. Both candidates are vying for the seat currently held by Republican Senator Elizabeth Dole. Hagan has the very Old School Inside the Beltway approach of trying to blur differences between herself and Dole and make them fuzzy. No one will ever accuse Jim Neal of that! Just take a look at how strongly and resolutely he's been speaking out about Bush's warrantless wiretaps and retroactive immunity-- while Hagan does the ole "me too" to Dole's rubber stamp routine.

As the insurgent Democrat running for this seat, Neal can use our support. On Feb 29th, volunteers around North Carolina and beyond will be holding Leap Friday house parties around the state. And on March 1 Jim will be doing his first live blog session at Firedoglake. (I think you know what that means.)

I asked Jeff Smith, a Boston-based sculptor and an editor of Literary Outpost, to write up his interview with Jim for DWT.

INTERVIEW WITH JIM NEAL

When I heard the first openly gay man to ever run for the U.S. Senate was doing so in the red state of North Carolina against the beloved Elizabeth Dole, I laughed for a long time until I stopped.  Then I laughed again.  Was this the most Quixotic quest I had ever heard of, or was I just being a damned Yankee?
 
Jeff Smith:  Which do you prefer, North Cackalacky or the Tar Heel State?
 
Jim Neal: The Tar Heel State.
 
Jeff: Not North Cackalacky?
 
Jim: The Tar Heel State. It takes a lot of explaining before people can grasp it, but having grown up here and been here as long as I have, it just comes second nature to me.
 
Jeff:  What does it mean, The Tar Heel State?
 
Jim: During the Revolutionary War soldiers fighting from North Carolina got the nickname because they had tar apparently stuck to the bottoms of their boots which is where the moniker came from.
 
Jeff: Where did all that tar come from do you think?
 
Jim: I don't know. There's more red clay down here than tar.
 
Jeff: Back when George Bush was running against Al Gore, voters seemed more concerned about who they'd rather have a beer with than anything else. Didn't people know that it's not a good idea to drink beer with an alcoholic?
 
Jim: I think George Bush has proven to be a very dangerous drinking buddy, whether he consumes alcohol or not.
 
Jeff: Do you know of anybody who would want to drink beer with Elizabeth Dole?
 
Jim: I am sure there are plenty of people who would love to sit down with Senator Dole if for no other reason than that she has led a very long and interesting life in public service, and, not withstanding all the things that may separate us, frankly I would love to sit down and have a beer with Elizabeth Dole some day.
 
Jeff: So tell me then, what is Elizabeth Dole doing wrong that makes you want to take her job? I mean, she seems so nice and good looking and she ran the Red Cross and married Bob Dole. 
 
Jim: Because Senator Dole hasn't done anything for our state and she's been a poor representative in the Senate for our country. She doesn't have the same mass broad appeal that she had when she established her residency here in 2002 to run for the Senate. She moved from North Carolina when I was two years old and moved back a few years ago to run for the Senate. And we don't see much of her around here until now that it's election season, and she's back more frequently.
 
Jeff: But do you really expect the voters of North Carolina to elect a gay Democrat as their senator?
 
Jim: Why wouldn't they? I don't think the voters of North Carolina care a whole hell of a lot about narrow issues like my sexual orientation anymore than the voters of Massachusetts cared that Mitt Romney was a Republican Mormon. We are a blue state with two red senators. I've got to tell you, you sound like just another a misinformed Yankee.
 
Jeff: I grew up in Tennessee and if we talked long enough, you would start to hear a southern drawl.
 
Jim: I'm waiting. (Laughs) So far, you're sounding like some elitist from Beantown.
 
Jeff: Well, I wouldn't even want to ask you any questions about your sexuality because I don't think it's any of my damned business-- it's just the man bites dog aspect of the stor...
 
Jim: I'm not doing this for kicks and giggles for God's sake. Why wouldn't they accept a gay man as their senator? We are about to accept a black man as our president, but we might have had a Mormon, and we might have a white woman, and God forbid we elected a Roman Catholic from Boston to the presidency. We're all different in many ways, but there are more things that unite us than pull us apart. Anything's possible.
 
Jeff: Have you ever held elective office before?
 
Jim: Never.
 
Jeff: What in your background gives you the right stuff to be a senator?
 
Jim: In a sense, the same sorts of things that gave the last Democratic senator from North Carolina a decade ago the right stuff to be senator, and he'd never run for elective office and wasn't particularly well known around the state-- a guy named John Edwards. John Edwards was a trial attorney who was well known within the realm of the legal circles. I'm someone who has spent my life working on Wall Street, running a couple of small businesses and raising two kids as a single parent.  I've stood in an unemployment line and my mother was born in a mill village. My grandparents worked in a cotton mill, so I come from a kind of humble background. I was the first member of my family to get a college degree.
 
Jeff: You have been a fundraiser for the Democrats. Is that true?
 
Jim: I raised money for General Wesley Clark's presidential campaign and Senator Kerry's and Senator Edwards's bid for the White House as well as Erskine Bowles' run for the US Senate here in North Carolina.
 
Jeff: Are you a superdelegate by any chance?
 
Jim: No I'm not, thank God.
 
Jeff: What do you think of the superdelegates anyway? The whole concept seems more outdated than doilies. In fact, once humanity gained the technology to count votes, why were they ever necessary?
 
Jim: I don't understand the nature of many things that happen within our party. The superdelegates are the quintessential insiders … I don't think they are a very good representation of the democracy that the Democratic party is supposed to be upholding.
 
Jeff: What can we do about global warming?
 
Jim: The first thing we can do is quit debating and start acting. From the federal government standpoint we need to attack the issue with the same type of ferocity that we came together as a nation during the second world war. Global warming poses that kind of threat, except this time it's not just our country, it's our planet. The U.S. is the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth, and we've got to be a leader here. And the only way you lead is by example. So we need to be the nation that is setting standards for the world to follow in terms of developing alternative energy sources and weaning ourselves off fossil fuels… We don't have another two years or another four years or another six years to debate this. 
 
Jeff: Your background is business and finance, so maybe you can answer this question: Is our country completely broke?
 
Jim: We are not completely broke. We are still the wealthiest nation.
 
Jeff: Don't we owe a lot of money?
 
Jim: What we've done is we have spent beyond our means. We have borrowed too much and we have embarked on follies like the war in Iraq which has been a catastrophe on so many levels and cost so many lives of Americans and innocent Iraqis. The soaring cost of that war is going to top two to three trillion dollars. 

We still have an enormous amount of wealth in this country, and what we are going through right now as a society as we transition into a new global economy is we're going to have to compete more aggressively and strengthen our education system. We need to continue to be innovators and leaders in technologies and the new industries that are part of the new global economy where we can compete effectively. We've always been able to compete with anybody. We are a country of innovators , but we will go broke if we don't continue to maintain an edge in the educational opportunities we provide our young people.
 
Jeff: How can we compete in the manufacturing sector with people who make 25 cents an hour?
 
Jim: It's going to be damned difficult, frankly. In our trade agreements we should build in provisos for living wages and parity of work conditions as well as environmental standards, but the reality is that, with certain of the embedded costs in the U.S. within the manufacturing process, it is difficult.

In our state, textiles, apparel and furniture have all but disappeared. That's the loss, but with that loss comes the opportunity for innovation. I'll give you an example: we have the second largest boat building industry in the U.S., and we've begun looking for ways to capture more of the value chain--the supplies and components that go into boat building. We can create new jobs here. For every door that's slammed, there's a new one that's opened. We're just going through a very bumpy transition period here right now, but I think we're going to be able to compete as a leader in the new clean energy technologies, in agriculture and in the research and development that's coming out of the NIH and our colleges and universities in sectors like biomanufacturing, bio technology, and certainly in the new information age. Look at companies like Google and Yahoo. These were start-up businesses 20 years ago or less, and they've created enormous opportunity and growth. In fact, Google opened up a facility here in North Carolina this year.
 
Jeff: I want to ask you a question it is every American's right not to answer.
 
Jim: I have never refused to answer a question, so fire away.
 
Jeff: Who do you like for president right now?
 
Jim: Obama. I think the best ticket for the Democratic party would be Obama/Clinton. That's the ticket, the winning ticket for our party.
 
Jeff: I have one last question: If you're ever in Boston, could we go grab a beer?
 
Jim: Sounds good to me. I love Beantown.
 
Jeff: I won't call your state North Cackalacky if you don't call my city Beantown
 
Jim: You've got a deal.


UPDATE: CHARLES MERRILL EXPLAINS WHY HE ENDORSED JIM NEAL

Charles Merrill is a respected philanthropist and activist and a big supporter of Jim Neal. He explains why in an open letter. "...Jim Neal is not your typical political candidate. In fact, he is not a politician at all. He is a single father who raised his sons while working as an investment banker, and later, as a financial consultant, and he understands that it takes more than pandering to the public and a catchy slogan to solve the everyday problems faced by the average American."