I wrote a diary yesterday explaining why Kaine is a deal-breaker and his ardent supporters asked me to prove that he is pro-life.

So here is (thanks to Sam Stein on Huffington Post) saying that he is no different than Bush on abortion.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/2 4/opinion/main682882.shtml

He also opposes stem-cell research:
http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do ;jsessionid=B8D00C12BD0D1FFD309943C8AFD2 7B01?diaryId=7769

And looks like he is homophobic also:
http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readm essage.cfm?thread=973679&boardname=o ff&dt=8&boardid=2

I am sorry, I dont want a Bush-lite as a Democrat VP nominee.

After Clinching the nomination, Obama has assaulted several of progressive's cherished ideals. Be it separation of church and state or gay rights or wireless wiretapping. But picking a pro-life VP in Kaine with the Supreme Court so delicately balanced will be it. That will be the final straw for me. If he picks Kaine, I am going for Nader or Cynthia.

The more I think about it, I think Obama should pick up somebody who is well-versed in economics and has had some executive experience. In my opinion, economy and not foreign affairs will be the determining force in November. Obama's foreign policy is fine as it is.

Also, I am not enthused by the so-called foreign policy expert Joe Biden. He may know a lot and have been around for some time; but frankly his solutions to foreign policy crises are usually not upto the mark. A case in point is his ``divide Iraq into three pieces.''

I think he should look towards some governor. Rendell comes to my mind. He literally turned around the economy of Philadelphia and has managed Pennsylvania fairly well. There should be other options also. But the gist of my line of thought is that Obama does not need a foreign policy expert. He is already one. What he needs is a economy expert which will also help him govern well.

In my humble opinion, the media, ardent Clinton supporters and Obama's team are making too much of that roll-call vote. Whether there is a roll-call vote or not, the fact that this was a close race in which the two candidates were separated by a few % points  will not change.

Indeed, there is such a simple solution to this roll-call vote ``controversy'' that I feel compelled to spell it out. The thing is that there SHOULD BE A  ROLL CALL VOTE on Monday, which of course Obama will win. Instead of getting nervous and fearful about it, Obama campaign SHOULD INCORPORATE  THIS INTO CAMPAIGN THEME OF CHANGE. Here is  way to do it. Bill Clinton, or maybe the VP, could come and say something like--

``What a remarkable moment in history? 100 years ago (or better when the Republican nominee  was growing up), not everybody in the country had a vote. Today, as I speak before the Dem convention, the two candidates who finished first and second in the primaries come from groups that did not have the right to vote back then. Not only they finished first and second, they received more votes than anybody in the history has ever received. Now, that is CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN. This is no cosmetic change. New people bring new ideas and perspective, and gives HOPE to all those people who have been left behind whether economically or socially. Here is what a President Obama's will bring to the admin--    ''

I am sure that professional speechwriters can do a much better job than me. But really, it seems to me that a roll-call vote is something that could be used as an advantage to Dem party.
 

It looks like Obama has lost the plot completely. Being nominated based on the strong support  of progressives, he seems to have turned around and stabbed them in the back repeatedly. First it was the faith-based initiatives, then came the sellout to telecom industry. And now, he sells to the oil industry and is ready to vote for the off-shore drilling.

Looks like he took the progressives for a ride.

It seems to me that the McCain camp have borrowed the policy of
military pre-emption to political pre-emption. As I see it, in this case, this will serve two purposes.

1) It will give a freer hand later down the road for the McCain camp to play the ``race card''. And I do believe they will play it. Infact, he already played it today, talking about affirmative action.

2) Several Clinton supporters were angry/upset about accusations of Bill and Hillary being racists. This has the potential of opening up those wounds.

I think there is no easy solution for the Obama camp now. In my opinion, I think they have to risk it and smear McCain back. The defense ``we didnt play the race card'' is sounding weak and Axelrod defended it poorly this morning. I think the Obama camp has to say that McCain camp is being racist. That is the only way forward.

On a separate note, the current status of the Obama campaign is reminding me of the Lamont campaign. For the past week or so, McCain camp has been setting the agenda; be it that celebrity ad or the race card charge. If Obama has decided who is going to be the VP, it is high time to announce his choice. The VP can go on attack against McCain. In my humble opinion, ``McCain is practising old politics'' is not going to win the election for them.

Today the California court did what politicians have been running away from- giving equal marriage rights to the same-sex couples. Along with the Massachusetts decision, this is in my opinion a landmark decision on this issue. The most important question for Dems now is whether they will be bold enough to make this issue a centerpiece of the new civil rights that this country desperately needs.

In the weeks ahead I will look for which Dem leaders will take lead over this issue. I am especially looking forward to whether our ``presumptive'' nominee or the ``presumptive'' runner-up will lead the good fight over this issue. Afterall, both of them have benefitted from the civil rights fights of the past and would not be here without those fights. The question is whether they will stand up for civil rights of other groups? That more than anything else will tell me all about their character.

Let us not be misled into believing that Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain are our choices come November. After the powerful DNC member (who is blocking FL) and prominent Obama supporter, Donna Brazile, openly declared on CNN that they dont need support of HISPANICS and white working class voters (and I assume by extension fervent Clinton supporters); there is no point in wasting our precious vote. Those who do not want our vote are not going to be looking for our interests at all. So, come November, remember that Sen Obama and Sen McCain are not our only choices. We have two very powerful advocates of progressive politicians running for President. They both support Universal Health Care, are strongly pro-choice, have a long history of fighting for Core progressive values. I speak of Ralph Nader and Congresswoman Cynthia Mckinney.  Indeed, Cynthia McKinney has also done that rare thing that Sen. Obama has not done- voted against FUNDING the war. So, when those obnoxious Sen. Obama supporters challenge you ``so you are going to vote for Sen. McCain'', just turn around and say, ``nope, we have real choices come November.''