Barack Obama’s recent rejection of public funding for his presidential campaign has elicited criticism from the Republicans, the media, and "good government" campaign finance reformers.

Many of the commentators on this matter have gone so far as to state that Obama’s decision is the "death" of public financing.  I do agree that public financing – and, perhaps, even much of campaign finance reform itself – is either dead or dying.  However, I do not think that Barack Obama is to blame for this situation.  Nor, for that matter, do I think it is necessarily a bad thing, because other ideas – ones more suited for the political realities of the 21st century – might be better than the current system.

Follow me below the fold to hear them.

The Pennsylvania Democratic primary happened pretty much as I – and many others - thought it would.  A Clinton victory, but not one that really means anything.  All it did was give her reason to drag an unwinnable race along much longer than she should.

For an Edwards supporter, the Iowa Caucuses last night were disappointing, to say the least.  Former Senator Edwards was counting heavily on an Iowa victory.  A second place finish, while not making an Edwards nomination impossible, would seem to make it very unlikely.

In the wake of Iowa, what’s an Edwards supporter to do?  Some thoughts, below the fold.

Congratulations to Al Gore.

I don’t care what any of the bitter assholes on Fox News, at The Wall Street Journal, or anywhere else say.  He deserves the Nobel Peace Prize that he won today.

The recount announcement from the Bush administration that former Federal judge Michael Mukasey will be their nominee for Attorney General has been met with relief from many in the progressive movement, as well as with praise from the mainstream media, which views Mukasey as a "consensus choice."

However, the fact that Mukasey is, unlike many past Bush nominations, a "consensus choice," does not mean that he’s perfect, or even ideal.  As of right now, there are plenty of warning signs about Mukasey that should make Senate Democrats, and movement progressives, willing to at least ask questions about his suitability to be Attorney General.

While covering the anti-war protests in Washington D.C. today, The NBC Nightly News interviewed a woman who was taking part in the "pro-war" counter protest.  A mother, with two children serving in Iraq, she made a claim that has been repeated by many of the Iraq War’s supporters: That, in order to "support the troops," you must also "support what they’re doing."

Because war is a type of policy, this statement, at the most fundamental of levels, amounts to saying that "support for the troops" equals a "total and unqualified support for a particular governmental policy," no matter how ill advised it may seem.  Tying support for the troops together with support for governmental goals, however, raises disturbing questions about what that would mean for democracy itself.

Recently, Congress passed a law that would require, within a few years, 100% of U.S. bound cargo containers to be scanned at their points of origin.  President Bush, while signing the law, has also criticized the requirement, questioning its "technical feasibility."

It’s interesting, in the face of this reluctance, to consider another largely "infeasible" project that’s being considered by the federal government.  For, while the Bush administration is all too willing to stall on the matter of securing America’s ports, it was all too anxious, a mere four years ago, to make the almost incomprehensibly difficult idea of sending a manned mission to Mars a national goal.

Today, my father, my older brother, and I attended a "Computer Fair and Ham Fest" in Westminster, Maryland.  As Westminster is in the more conservative, "Republican" part of Maryland, where pickup trucks with Ehrlich and Steele bumper stickers on them are plentiful, I was pleasantly surprised to hear disdain for President Bush voiced by a number of the venders and attendees.

As is the case in many areas of the country, the displeasure with Bush, in large part, revolved around the Iraq War.  The short term benefits of this for the Democratic Party, and for the United States of America, will be good, especially if they lead to an administration committed to a change of direction after the 2008 elections.  After listening to conversation today, however, I am much more uncertain of the long-term benefits.  Especially as I seem to be watching a most unwise framing of the history of the Iraq War take hold.

Senator Olympia Snowe has been receiving much praise for reportedly "breaking" from the Republican Party, and supporting a Democratic measure last month that would have set a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

As part of a series on how Congress is dealing with the Iraq War, The Washington Post, today, ran an article on the reactions – and attitudes – regarding the Iraq War that Snowe is facing among the Maine public.  The article is interesting in and of itself.  However, in what was, perhaps, an "off hand" remark, Snowe managed to raise a great deal of anger in me – as well as a great deal of concern about how this country’s descent into its current situation in Iraq will be portrayed in coming decades.

No office in Pennsylvania politics has been quite as frustrating as that of State Attorney General.  Ever since 1980, when the position became an elected one, the voters have never opted to send a Democrat to that seat.  Even as Pennsylvania has, ever so slowly, turned a bluer shade of purple, giving its electoral votes to every Democratic Presidential nominee since 1992, and sending Democrats to the Governor’s office, the State Auditor General and State Treasurer’s offices, and one of the state’s U.S. Senate seats, the State Attorney General’s office has remained firmly in Republican hands.

Tom Corbett, the current Republican to hold the State Attorney General’s office, will be up for re-election next year.  And, according to Philadelphia Daily News columnist John Baer, the PA Democratic Party may be dipping into the state’s most well known political family to find a challenger for him.

Growing up, I was a fan of Sierra On-Line adventure games for the PC.  Unlike the console arcade games of the time, adventure games placed story above action, and thinking above reflexes.  My favorite line of Sierra adventure games was Space Quest, a space comedy about Roger Wilco, a normal, every day guy who finds himself trapped in unusual – and hilarious – situations.

A few weeks ago, while searching online for information about Space Quest, I was surprised to come across an Adventure Classic Gaming interview with Scott Murphy, one of Space Quest’s co-creators.  Even more surprising was how, after reading the interview, I realized that it serves as an illustration of the screwed up values of corporate America today, and how they can impact real people.

With Michael Bloomberg’s announcement the other week that he has left the GOP, there has been much speculation about an independent bid for the presidency on his part.  Bloomberg himself refuses to rule anything out, and, indeed, the mere act of leaving the Republican Party seems to indicate that the mayor may be taking the first steps towards such a bid.

While at least some progressives may be enamoured with Bloomberg, I am not.  Nor is there any way I can see myself voting for him for President.

Earlier this week, the Employee Free Choice Act failed to gain the 60 votes it needed for consideration by the United States Senate.  While this was not unexpected, the defeat of the bill represents a failure by many of those in Washington to stand up for the rights of ordinary workers.

However, Even in defeat, Tuesday’s vote on the Employee Free Choice Act brings with it some good signs for the future. Making progress in American politics is a long-term effort.  And, although we may not have been able to pass the EFCA now, it is increasingly likely that we will be able to in the future.

Lately, I’ve been exposed to comments, both in the netroots community, and in the "real world," that seem assured of the ability of the Democrats to win in 2008.  While most agree that the Democrats are on good footing going into 2008, at least some people, in both parties, seem to have reached the conclusion that 2008 will break Democratic because the Republicans are too damaged to win, or because the public will simply decide that it’s the "Democrats turn."

Such ideas of assured victory are false, and progressive activists must not be lulled into believing otherwise.

More below the fold.

Labor issues are very important to me.  That’s why, a few months ago, I contacted both of my U.S. Senators to ask them to support the Employee Free Choice Act when it comes before the Senate.

It took quite some time, but I eventually heard back from U.S. Senator Bob Casey Jr.  The only problem is, his reply didn’t address the EFCA.  At all.

Recently, I was flipping through my copy of The American Century, by Harold Evans, and I found a story about late 19th century Romanian immigrants.  This story turned my thoughts to the immigration bill that recently stalled in the United States Senate, and the impact it could have, if it ever passes, on what we stand for as nation – not only now, but, for generations in the future.

More below the fold.

Imagine the following scenario: You work a decent, well paying, union job at a local brewery.  The town you live in is fairly small, and the brewery provides the majority of employment for the area.  You love your job, and you need to hang on to it, in order to keep your family afloat.  If you were to be laid off, you likely wouldn’t be able to find anything else in the area.  Certainly nothing that pays as well.

One day, you, and the other employees, are called into your boss's office, to talk about the future of the business.  He blasts the union – calling them "those guys from Philadelphia" – and threatens to close the company if the workforce remains unionized.

What would you do in that situation?  Because it’s precisely the situation that workers at D.G. Yuengling & Son faced last year – and, it’s why the Teamsters Union is now boycotting Yuengling’s products.

Yesterday, with the news that the Democratic leadership had agreed to send an Iraq Supplemental bill with no timelines to the president, views among the netroots were despondent, at best.  Not only does it seem that the Democratic leadership is caving to an unpopular president, on an unpopular issue, but it seems that netroots "favorites" like Jim Webb and Jon Tester have caved to Republican talking points on "supporting the troops."

While the majority of netroots progressives remain committed to the cause, many seem to have come to the conclusion that it’s a good time to take a break from politics, or to get out entirely.  Some have decided that there’s no hope, ever, for changing the Democratic Party.

Perhaps, then, this is as good a time as any to remember what the late Senator Paul Wellstone might have done in this situation.