Today's column is spot on.

legislative accomplishments.  Like these, perhaps?

Nonproliferation: the poster child for issues that people ought to care about, but don't. Here Obama has teamed up with Richard Lugar (R-IN). How did this happen? Here's the Washington Monthly:

   "By most accounts, Obama and Lugar's working relationship began with nukes. On the campaign trail in 2004, Obama spoke passionately about the dangers of loose nukes and the legacy of the Nunn-Lugar nonproliferation program, a framework created by a 1991 law to provide the former Soviet republics assistance in securing and deactivating nuclear weapons. Lugar took note, as "nonproliferation" is about as common a campaign sound-bite for aspiring senators as "exchange-rate policy" or "export-import bank oversight.""

The way to a wonk's heart: campaign on securing Russian loose nukes. -- In any case, in addition to working on nuclear non-proliferation, Obama and Lugar co-sponsored legislation expanding the Nunn-Lugar framework (which basically allows the US to fund the destruction or securing of nuclear weapons in other countries) to deal with conventional arms. From an op-ed Obama and Lugar wrote on their legislation:

   "These vast numbers of unused conventional weapons, particularly shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles that can hit civilian airliners, pose a major security risk to America and democracies everywhere. That's why we have introduced legislation to seek out and destroy surplus and unguarded stocks of conventional arms in Asia, Europe, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East.

   Our bill would launch a major nonproliferation initiative by addressing the growing threat from unsecured conventional weapons and by bolstering a key line of defense against weapons of mass destruction. Modeled after the successful Nunn-Lugar program to dismantle former Soviet nuclear weapons, the Lugar-Obama bill would seek to build cooperative relationships with willing countries.

   One part of our initiative would strengthen and energize the U.S. program against unsecured lightweight antiaircraft missiles and other conventional weapons, a program that has for years been woefully underfunded. There may be as many as 750,000 missiles, known formally as man-portable air defense systems, in arsenals worldwide. The State Department estimates that more than 40 civilian aircraft have been hit by such weapons since the 1970s. Three years ago terrorists fired missiles at -- and missed -- a jetliner full of Israeli tourists taking off from Mombasa, Kenya. In 2003 a civilian cargo plane taking off from Baghdad was struck but landed safely.

   Loose stocks of small arms and other weapons also help fuel civil wars in Africa and elsewhere and, as we have seen repeatedly, provide ammunition for those who attack peacekeepers and aid workers seeking to stabilize and rebuild war-torn societies. The Lugar-Obama measure would also seek to get rid of artillery shells like those used in the improvised roadside bombs that have proved so deadly to U.S. forces in Iraq.

   Some foreign governments have already sought U.S. help in eliminating their stocks of lightweight antiaircraft missiles and millions of tons of excess weapons and ammunition. But low budgets and insufficient leadership have hampered destruction. Our legislation would require the administration to develop a response commensurate with the threat, consolidating scattered programs at the State Department into a single Office of Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction. It also calls for a fivefold increase in spending in this area, to $25 million -- a relatively modest sum that would offer large benefits to U.S. security.

   The other part of the legislation would strengthen the ability of America's friends and allies to detect and intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction or material that could be used in a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon. Stopping weapons of mass destruction in transit is an important complement to our first line of defense, the Nunn-Lugar program, which aims to eliminate weapons of mass destruction at their source."

Dealing with unsecured stocks of shoulder-fired missiles and other kinds of conventional weapons, stocks that might fall into anyone's hands, be sold on the black market, and end up being used against our troops or our citizens, or fueling civil wars that tear countries apart -- it seems to me that this is an excellent thing to spend one's time on.

Avian flu: Obama was one of the first Senators to speak out on avian flu, back in the spring of 2005, when it was a quintessentially wonky issue, not the subject of breathless news reports. There's a list of Democratic efforts on avian flu here; Obama shows up early and often. He has sponsored legislation, including what I think is the first bill dedicated to pandemic flu preparedness. It's a good bill, providing not just for vaccine research and antiviral stockpiles, but for the kinds of state and local planning and preparedness that will be crucial if a pandemic occurs. (I was also very interested to note that it requires the Secretary of HHS to contract with the Institute of Medicine for a study of "the legal, ethical, and social implications of, with respect to pandemic influenza". This is actually very important, and not everyone would have thought of it.)

He has also spoken out consistently on this topic, beginning long before it was hot. Here, for instance, is another op-ed by Obama and Lugar:

   "We recommend that this administration work with Congress, public health officials, the pharmaceutical industry, foreign governments and international organizations to create a permanent framework for curtailing the spread of future infectious diseases.

   Among the parts of that framework could be these:

   Increasing international disease surveillance, response capacity and public education and coordination, especially in Southeast Asia.

   Stockpiling enough antiviral doses to cover high-risk populations and essential workers.

   Ensuring that, here at home, Health and Human Services and state governments put in place plans that address issues of surveillance, medical care, drug and vaccine distribution, communication, protection of the work force and maintenance of core public functions in case of a pandemic.

   Accelerating research into avian flu vaccines and antiviral drugs.

   Establishing incentives to encourage nations to report flu outbreaks quickly and fully."

This is very good policy, especially the parts about increasing surveillance and response capacity here and abroad. (Effect Measure approves too.)

Regulating Genetic Testing: It was while I was reading about this issue that I first thought: gosh, Barack Obama seems to turn up whenever I am reading about some insanely wonky yet important issue. And this one is not just off the radar; it and the radar are in different universes. Anyways:

You might be surprised to learn that there is very little quality control over genetic testing. I was. If I offer some genetic test, I can basically say what I like about what it will reveal, so long as I avoid violating the laws against fraud. And if you think about how easy it would be to avoid those laws just by talking about, say, a test for some gene that has been found to be slightly associated with increased IQ, you can see how many deceptive (but not legally fraudulent) claims this allows.

Moreover -- and more seriously -- there is very little oversight of the quality of labs that do tests -- that is, whether or not they tend to get the right answers when they do those tests. There is a law (passed in response to evidence that significant numbers of people were getting incorrect results on pap smears) that requires what's called proficiency testing for labs. But though the law requires that the government develop special proficiency tests for labs that do work requiring special kinds of knowledge, and though genetic testing plainly fits that bill, the government has not developed any proficiency tests for genetic testing labs.

This is serious, and bad. Suppose you are mistakenly informed that you are a carrier for some horrible disease: you might decide never to have kids. Suppose you have a fetus tested and you are told that it has, say, Downs' syndrome: you might abort. To do these things as the result of a lab error would be horrible.

Not nearly as horrible as the results of some false negatives, though. Consider this case (from a very good report on the topic):

   "A Florida couple both tested negative for the genetic mutation that causes Tay-Sachs, a fatal childhood disease. Two copies of the mutation are required to cause the disease. The couple learned that the test results were incorrect for both parents when their son began exhibiting symptoms of Tay-Sachs shortly after birth. He died eight years later"

Tay-Sachs is an unbelievably horrible disease:

   "Infants with Tay-Sachs disease appear to develop normally for the first few months of life. Then, as nerve cells become distended with fatty material, a relentless deterioration of mental and physical abilities occurs. The child becomes blind, deaf, and unable to swallow. Muscles begin to atrophy and paralysis sets in. Other neurological symptoms include dementia, seizures, and an increased startle reflex to noise. (...)

   Even with the best of care, children with Tay-Sachs disease usually die by age 4, from recurring infection."

So imagine this: you know that you and your spouse are at risk for carrying this disease. You both get tested; neither is a carrier. You give birth to an apparently healthy child. But after a few months, the child you love stops developing normally, and it turns out that both your test and your spouses were misinterpreted, or screwed up, or whatever, and as a result your child is going to die a horrible death by the age of four. Oops!

In your copious free time, you can think of more cases in which screwing up a genetic test would be disastrous. After you get through with the cases involving children and inherited diseases, consider the effects of misreading a genetic test and informing a man that he is not the father of his child when in fact he is. The possibilities are endless.

You can probably guess who has introduced legislation that addresses this problem. The people who wrote the initial report (note: I know them; they're very good) think it's good. So do I.

Reducing medical malpractice suits the right way: Contrary to popular belief, medical malpractice claims do not do much to drive up health care costs. Still, medical malpractice litigation is a problem. Tort reform would address this problem at the expense of people who have been the victims of real, serious medical malpractice, who would lose their right to sue, or have it curtailed. If you read the medical literature, however, it turns out that there's a much better way to minimize malpractice suits, namely: apologizing. Strange to say, it turns out that people are a lot less likely to sue when doctors and hospitals admit their mistakes up front, compensate the patients involved fairly, and generally treat people with respect. It certainly would have helped in this case:

   "A Sanford mother says she will never be able to hold her newborn because an Orlando hospital performed a life-altering surgery and, she claims, the hospital refuses to explain why they left her as a multiple amputee.

   The woman filed a complaint against Orlando Regional Healthcare Systems, she said, because they won't tell her exactly what happened. The hospital maintains the woman wants to know information that would violate other patients' rights."

I'd want to know what happened too, if someone cut off all my arms and legs. And in a case like this, if it was malpractice, limiting the damages a person can collect doesn't seem like the right answer, somehow.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton teamed up to introduce legislation aimed at helping hospitals to develop programs for disclosure of medical errors. (They describe it in this NEJM article.) Again, I think it's good policy: this really is what the evidence suggests is the best way to reduce malpractice claims, and it does it without curtailing the rights of people who have already been injured through no fault of their own. Moreover, when people feel free to discuss their errors, they are much more likely to figure out ways to avoid repeating them. (The legislation provides support for this.) And that's the best way of all to deal with malpractice claims: by addressing the causes of medical malpractice itself.

***

Those are some of the wonkier things he's done. (There are others: introducing legislation to make it illegal for tax preparers to sell personal information, for instance, and legislation on chemical plant security and lead paint.) He has done other things that are more high-profile, including:

   * His "health care for hybrids" bill

   * An Energy Security Bill

   * Various bills on relief for Hurricane Katrina, including aid for kids and a ban on no-bid contracts by FEMA

   * A public database of all federal spending and contracts

   * Trying to raise CAFE standards

   * Veterans' health care

   * Making certain kinds of voter intimidation illegal

   * A lobbying reform bill (with Tom Coburn), which would do all sorts of good things, notably including one of my perennial favorites, requiring that bills be made available to members of Congress at least 72 hours before they have to vote on them.

   * And a proposal to revamp ethics oversight, replacing the present ethics Committee with a bipartisan commission of retired judges and members of Congress, and allowing any citizen to report ethics violations. This would have fixed one of the huge problems with the present system, namely: that the members have to police themselves.

In the Illinois State Senate, this meant working with both Democrats and Republicans to help working families get ahead by creating programs like the state Earned Income Tax Credit, which in three years provided over $100 million in tax cuts to families across the state. He also pushed through an expansion of early childhood education, and after a number of inmates on death row were found innocent, Senator Obama worked with law enforcement officials to require the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases.

In the U.S. Senate, he has focused on tackling the challenges of a globalized, 21st century world with fresh thinking and a politics that no longer settles for the lowest common denominator. His first law was passed with Republican Tom Coburn, a measure to rebuild trust in government by allowing every American to go online and see how and where every dime of their tax dollars is spent. He has also been the lead voice in championing ethics reform that would root out Jack Abramoff-style corruption in Congress.

As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Obama has fought to help Illinois veterans get the disability pay they were promised, while working to prepare the VA for the return of the thousands of veterans who will need care after Iraq and Afghanistan. Recognizing the terrorist threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, he traveled to Russia with Republican Dick Lugar to begin a new generation of non-proliferation efforts designed to find and secure deadly weapons around the world. And knowing the threat we face to our economy and our security from America's addiction to oil, he's working to bring auto companies, unions, farmers, businesses and politicians of both parties together to promote the greater use of alternative fuels and higher fuel standards in our cars.

Whether it's the poverty exposed by Katrina, the genocide in Darfur, or the role of faith in our politics, Barack Obama continues to speak out on the issues that will define America in the 21st century. But above all his accomplishments and experiences, he is most proud and grateful for his family. His wife, Michelle, and his two daughters, Malia, 9, and Sasha, 6, live on Chicago's South Side where they attend Trinity United Church of Christ.

Source: Barack Obama for President website

where Obama and Hillary worked together on the Hospital disclosure law only counts as an Obama accomplishment, since we know Hillary has none. Much like her 8 years of experience in the WH were simply being Bill Clinton's wife, I am pretty sure in this instance she just got to nod at Obama's ideas while always remaining 10 paces behind him.

accomplishments.  The problem is, some of them aren't ones she wants to brag about, like her strong support for the invasion of Iraq.  Anyway, the American people seem to have made their decision.

Barack Obama has surged past Hillary Clinton to open a big national lead in the Democratic presidential race, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

[...]

The poll showed Obama with a 14-point edge over Clinton, 52 percent to 38 percent, after being in a statistical tie with the New York senator last month.

In other words, this Democratic race is all but over.  The question, to "plagiarize" Obama, is this:  "are you really ready for change?"  Because it's coming, my friend, it's coming.  And it's name is Barack Obama.

but I'm gonna get some sarcastic shots in at the misogynistic lot of you before surrendering. :)  

Honestly, aznew, if I weren't too sick to be miffed I would be really outraged at this.  Americans, and American women in particular, are rejecting the notion that you have to vote for Hillary or else they are misogynists.  And it's absurd to suggest that they are.  Nor do any of those males here (or elsewhere)have to prove their mettle re equal rights to you. We don't owe you the litany of effort we've given to assure both civil rights and equal rights.  It's not your place to ever suggest otherwise.  And it is over the line for you to say this.  

I do not suggest you be trolled.  Indeed, I'd argue vigorously against it.  But perhaps you should think long and hard about the tactics you (and the Hillary camp) use.  They are not winning the nomination.  They are, however, really burning bridges and damaging people's impressions of Hillary Rodham Clinton.  

I don't blame you for being disappointed, or even angry that your candidate isn't doing as well as you'd hoped.  But for God's sake, let the name-calling stop.

Sorry if you didn't get it.

Furthermore, even as I have argued my case at this blog I have been consistently respectful and unlike many other posts I have seen, have not once insulted anyone, nor cast aspersions on anyone's motivation for supporting whatever candidate they choose. Where people have taken offense at something I have written, I have apologized.

Given the friendly tone I was clearly taking with Lowell in the exchange, the contemporaneous post I made this morning basically agreeing with him about the significance of the Wisconsin results for Clinton's campaign, the emoticon, and positive attitude I have displayed in my posts here even as I have disagreed with people, I think your jumping down my throat like this is way out of line.

As for my need to think long and hard about any tactic I have used, I would like you to provide a single example, aside from citing an instance where you might disagree with me or find a logical fallacy in my reasoning, where I have employed an unethical tactic that I need to "think long and hard" about.

Oh, and by the way, I'm not angry about Hillary losing.

anybody that thinks hillary wont try to Bush-2000 this election,
Prepare to be shocked and awed.
If Hillary wins by steling delegates, her presidency will make G Bushes seem good.

if she takes away the nomination with super-delegates. If she does that, we will see McCain as president of the U.S. the backlash will be strong.

At this point the Obama campaign is a movement. An just-born baby movement, but a movement nevertheless.

This is about the American people re-awaking to active civic life, not about Obama.

You can ask the supporters from a campaign to forget all the ill words and join in the general election, and most will do it.

You cannot steal the nomination and expect a movement to flock to your side.

which is the absolutely right thing to do, but barring a reversal in the race that results in a huge Clinton victory in Texas and Ohio, it pretty much looks over.

That would require some huge stumble, error or disclosure on Obama's part, a highly unlikely event. There is little Hillary Clinton can now do to change things.

I honestly get the sense that she has not really spent much time getting comfortable with the idea that she may not be president the next four years. She is going to have to do so -- to figure out what comes next for her -- before the race can end.

Being president has been an ambition of hers for a long time, and to have it fall apart so quickly and dramatically can't be easy.

I do hope that for its own sake (and expect that it will happen) over the next few weeks the Clinton camp recognizes what is happening and resists the urge to nuclear negative, fighting hard in a positive way, sticking to the issues in criticizing Obama, and staying away from nickel and dime idiotic criticisms like the plagiarism nonsense or Michelle Obama's speeches.

and NOT damage the Democratic Party -- or Barack Obama, the soon-to-be nominee -- in the process.  Unfortunately, there are some diehard Clinton supporters who apparently don't care. I would hope that all good Democrats would condemn this type of garbage.

So, I am wondering since Obama is going to be taking incoming fire from both Clinton and McCain (which certainly has seemed coordinated to me so far)

Is it time to look at the fact that McCain's chief strategist, Charley Black actually works for Mark Penn at Burson-Marsteller Worldwide . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

(via Kausflies)

So I think there is a distinct possibility they are at least sharing notes if not coordinating to take out a common threat.

I first noticed this when both Clinton and McCain simultaneously released press releases attacking Obama (pretty much along the same lines) on his economic speech.

I'm sure they realize.

But contrary to how some of their critics perceive them, they are not machines, but human beings.

I am sure this is a very difficult morning for all three of them.

But, yeah, outside of the entertainment value of watching Matthews trying to regain some professional chops after his horrendous performance of the last several months by embarrassing some hapless Texas state legislator on TV, Taylor Marsh's posting of this stuff is not particularly helpful to Hillary Clinton.

And I agree with you here one hundred percent and whole heartedly.  She should leave with dignity and let the healing in the Democratic Party begin.

But to be really, really honest, a lot of Obama supporters, not just here (but here has been pretty representative) but all across the Virginia blogosphere, have been just as harsh and also wouldn't have cared one whit about unity if their candidate hadn't been winning.

We've both seen those who have said loudly and often that they would never support Hillary.  You never, never did that. So it's not a criticism at all directed at you.

But I've heard it here and elsewhere from some others. That's what I've argued, often obnoxiously, against.  And I apologize if I've come across to strong and too unkind because of it.

But my fear is the anger and vitriol now does cut both ways.  It's very hard to extend the olive branch when Hillary's supporters have heard what has been said about her, including the vow never to support her in the general election.

I always said that Obama was probably going to win with a positive message, so please let's not go negative and offend those we are going to need in November.  

That's because Republicans are not going to cross over and desert John McCain.  Not in the numbers we would need if the Democratic Party remains badly divided.

And the Independents we truly need will be turned off by all the harsh, angry rhetoric which undercuts Obama's positive and hope filled message and his charisma.  

BTW, I don't believe, now, that the super delegates are going to be the big factor as predicted by the media.  I honestly believe Obama will take Ohio. Hillary may still take Texas.  But really, the race will be over by March.

Can we let the healing begin by backing away from the Hillary bashing so her supporters can come back? Or do we shoot ourselves completely in the foot once again?

Just sayin:

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

woah... it looks like he's closed the gap to single digits in both contests... and with 2 weeks to go.

This bodes ill for Hill.

and doesn't undercut my argument that the super delegates won't have the influence people feared.  It strengthens my belief that Obama will be nominated democratically, which will help us to come together.

NY State Democratic Primary: In 60 precincts in NY City, including some in and near Harlem, Barack Obama got zero votes.  What is the likelihood of that happening?  

This info is according to John Nichols of The Nation Magazine (per discussion on Democracy Now yesterday).  Wanted to blog this yesterday, but still too sick.. to write a long article.  There are clamors for an investigation.  So far squat.  It may be be due to a glitch or it may be more than that.  No one knows.  What is known is it happened and that there is no chance that zero people voted for Obama in precincts right adjacent to ones going for him by 85%.

Please pass this on....

As I said on another thread, David Axelrod is the media message strategist for both Barack Obama and Duval Patrick.  

not Duval.

fixed