Check the Record Here

Wondering how your Members of Congress have voted on key rural economic issues? Use these websites to check on the following issues and more:

Veterans' Report Card, sponsored by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. Pay special attention to the votes for the New GI Bill, because it is just a bit tricky to tell whether your Representative voted for it. The Bill itself is quite simple, authorizing our Afghan and Iraq war veterans as eligible to receive the same kind of educational benefits our WWII veterans. There are three votes, and to see which members tried to stop the bill, look down the column to the first two votes.

Project Vote Smart, like IAVA, is a non-partisan organizationdedicated to accurate information about how elected officials in Congress vote. We recomment you check the following votes:

• Agriculture -- Farm Bill. Look closely -- there are four votes and if your concern is that the bill President Bush vetoed is too expensive, start your analysis at 7-27-2007 because this vote shows the less expensive original Farm Bill.
• Health -- Farm Bill; Medicare; Medicaid; State Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization.
• Women's issues -- Unequal Pay Bill.
• Seniors -- Medicare; Medicaid; GI Bill Expansion and Other Domestic Provisions
• Energy -- Renewable Energy; Commodity Markets Speculation.

Obama? McCain? check the record on their rural policy proposals below. Note that McCain, like President Bush opposed the Farm Bill, and Obama supported it. Their policy proposals can be found below on their campaign websites.

Three key differences in their policy proposals are:

1. Ethanol and Energy Renewable Research -- McCain opposes; Obama supports.
2. Farm Bill in general -- McCain opposes; Obama supports.
3. Health Care -- McCain opposes SCHIP and Obama supports

McCain: RURAL

Obama: RURAL

You can also continue scrolling down this page for more information on various substantive "bread & butter" issues that affect rural families.

Find Out Who Really Supports Our Troops

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) has a 2008 Veterans Report Card on line -- interesting because it clearly details this year's votes on issues affecting our veterans, and when you read carefully, it also offers clear documentation about who repeatedly tried to stop support for our veterans and then worked to hide their original votes, i.e., voted against it before they voted for it.

2008 Veterans Report Card

For example, click into your Representative's votes on Senator Jim Webb's New GI Bill, that received strong support in the Senate on the first try, but in the US House took three votes to get it right.

We don't have space to detail every single Member of Congress here on our web page, but you'll find them by clicking Report Card. Then look carefully at the votes because the "grade" that IAVA gives them is sometimes deceiving. For example, we looked at Representative Steve King (R-IA5). King gets a CHECKMARK for voting to support a New GI Bill -- and voting for the New GI Bill is good. However, look more carefully, and you'll see that the documentation actually says:

• A New GI Bill (2nd Vote) YEA 6/19/08 ... (good vote) ... but below it are two more votes
• A Second Rate GI Bill YEA 5/23/08 ... (bad vote) ... and continuing
• A New GI Bill (1st Vote) NEA 5/15/08 ... (bad vote).
  

So yup!! Caught in the act! What King did was try to stop (5/15) the good bill, i.e., the bill supported by IAVA and then he voted (5/23) to support a bill that had much weaker benefits for our vets. Finally, he faced the reality that the Senate had voted consistently to support the New GI Bill so he voted yes when the bill was going to pass in spite of his effort.

In contrast to King's opposition and later "pile on", Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) was consistent in his position, voting twice to support the New GI Bill and also acting as a co-sponsor.

A few notes of caution: Steve King stood with some pretty strong company since he supported both President Bush and Senator John McCain as they opposed the New GI Bill, and both Bush and McCain did all they could to make it a party line vote. However, a quick look at the states of Virginia and Pennsylvania show that some Members and also Senator Barack Obama really did put our soldiers first as they reached across party lines. See below for examples:

VIRGINIA
Voting Consistently YES! Senator John W. Warner (R-VA) and Senator James H. Webb (D-VA) ... each with four consistent votes for Webb's New GI Bill ... were joined by Virginia's three Democratic House members: Robert C. Scott (VA-3); Jim Moran (VA-8) and Rick Boucher (VA-9).

Hiding their vote as they voted NO and NO and finally along-for-the-ride yes! Robert Wittman (VA-1); Thelma Drake (VA-2); J. Randy Forbes (VA-4); Virgil H. Goode, Jr. (VA-5); Bob Goodlatte (VA-6); Eric Cantor (VA-7); Frank R. Wolf (VA-10), and; Tom Davis (VA-11).

PENNSYLVANIA
Votiing consistently YES! Senator's Arlen Specter (R) and Robert P. Casey (D) stood together for our veterans, too, and in the House, the IAVA website gives two Republican House members credit for doing what right, with Phil English (PA-3) and Jim Gerlach (PA-6) getting"A" ratings for their commitment to veterans. And Democrats Robert A. Brady (PA1), Jason Altmire (PA4), Joe Sestak (PA-7), Patrick J. Murphy (PA 8); Christopher P. Carney (PA-10), Allyson Y Schwartz (PA-13), and Tim Holden (PA-17) got it right, each receiving "A+" ratings from IAVA.

Hiding their vote as they voted NO and NO and finally along-for-the-ride yes! All other PA members split with their Senators and opposed the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans' much needed New GI Bill.

See for yourself (all states) at IAVA Report Card.

Agriculture/Food/Rural Policy Platforms of the Presidential Candidates

On October 7, the Farm Foundation utilized their monthly Farm Foundation Forum to host representatives from the Obama and McCain campaigns. Their assignment was to talk about food, agriculture and rural policy in their respective campaigns.

The event -- held at the National Press Club, featured James C. Webster, an Obama Agriculture Advisory Committee member and former USDA Secretary Block, who represented the McCain Campaign. You can listen to the forum at: http://www.farmfoundation.org/news/articlefiles

Originally from South Dakota, Mr. Webster recently retired as the author and founder of the Webster Ag-Letter, a well respected news letter that has documented agriculture, food and rural development policy-making in the US Congress and the Department of Agriculture.

John Block, originally from Illinois, served as Secretary of Agriculture under President Ronald Reagan.

The Farm Foundation, a publicly supported 501 (c)(3), is directed by a Board of Trustees comprised of leaders in production agriculture, related businesses and academia.

McCain Will Show Up

Breaking News ... at noon today, McCain announced he would debate tonight at Ol' Miss. And soon afterwards, McCain staff also admitted McCain spent hours in debate prep last night.

So ... we're glad that Mississippi gets its debate, and after all the preparations ... and all the theatrics about McCain closing down his campaign, we can hardly wait to watch both McCain and Obama.

The "Wall Street Journal" Calls McCain Actions "Mystifying"

"Mystifying" ... reckless ... irresponsible ... undependable ... so many adjectives ... so little time! In our book, any of these words will do to describe John's McCain's diversionary tactic. The Wall Street Journal's 9/25/08 coverage said this:

"Last we checked, the President of the United States was still George W. Bush, the Secretary of the Treasury was still Henry Paulson, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve was still Ben Bernanke, and Congress still had 533 members not running for President who are at least nominally competent to debate and pass legislation.

"So count us as mystified by Senator John McCain's decision yesterday to suspend his campaign and call for a postponement in Friday's first Presidential debate so that he and Barack Obama can work out a consensus bill to stabilize the financial system. This is supposed to be evidence of leadership?"

Just like The Wall Street Journal, we checked too ... and surprise ... surprise (evidently to Mr. McCain), George W. Bush is still President, Nancy Pelosi is still speaker ... all the leadership remains the same. Committee's haven't changed and although not happy about having to fix the problem, our Congressional leadership, i.e., our governing system, was working just like it is supposed to, with leaders both diligently and responsibly working together to fix the Wall Street "melt-down" that bears the risk of drying up credit for everyone.

In short and very simple because space and time is limited here, Secretary of the Treasury Paulson's original plan was three pages ... very simple. It basically said Treasury needs cash to shore up big bank/big investment companies who are failing. $700 Billion, more than the Iraq War & occupation together has cost to date has cost, was the ask.

• Paulson was clear and straightforward about the need and Congress realized it had to act.
• What was missing from the Paulson proposal was protections for the taxpayers.
• Barack Obama called for protections as did Democrats ... pay back to the taxpayers once the companies get stabilized; offer specific assistance to help home owners get their mortgages under control; eliminate the huge golden parachutes Wall Street "big boys" were going to get as their companies went down, and; lock in oversight to make sure all this money is used carefully and legally.
  
• The Congress -- it's leadership and key committee members -- acted. Democrats lead the way to make sure that the money wouldn't be used lightly to line the wrong people's pockets and Republicans were carefully agreeing.

At this point, according to McCain's own statements, he didn't know as as much about the economy as he should, but he thought the economy was strong, later explaining what he meant by strong, i.e., "fundamentals" but not jobs (????) which made no sense at all. Two days ago he admitted that he had not even read the Paulson proposal, and yesterday, there he was mucking things up in Washington.

Readers will remember the farm credit crisis of the 1980's, a crisis that no one in Washington acted responsibly on and for those of us who come from, or remain in, production agriculture, many of us still bear the scars from plunging land values, creditors working to call loans on all too often people that still had equity but were struggling to pay ... and people losing their land.

I think we can agree that our leadership -- Bush is still president and the leaders in Congress really are working diligently to make sure can't let that our country doesn't fail -- either in farm country or worse yet, all across this land -- again.

So what's really going on? The Wall Street Journal also said this,

"... We also understand Mr. McCain's desire to further dress his campaign in "Country First" gilding, as if patriotism and consensus are one and the same, or that getting something done is more important than getting it right."

All this "dancing around" of McCain's is more proof that McCain's judgement is less than solid ... scary, actually.

1. McCain picks Sarah Palin as VP when he barely knows her and even Laura Bush has called her without experience in foreign policy ... no foreign policy experience, can barely pronounce the names of international allies and enemies .. when we are in two wars, and the odds say that McCain himself with his four cancers and his aging issues will likely die in office.
2. McCain admits he doesn't understand the economy ... plays a whole series of political tricks at this very risky time for our whole country.
3. ?????? too many to name here, but skipping the debate surely makes the list.
   

?? This week's nomination for "mystifying" for #3 ... he's afraid to debate Obama and doing all this play-acting about being in charge to avoid having to debate international policy and how these policies are affecting our national economy.

Hello??? McCain is NOT "in charge" ... and NOT "elected" ... and may never be. We the American people deserve to hear what both Barack Obama and John McCain have to say in detail about this mess.

Oooooo! Ugly Question

Lots of people have great expectations for this election, but one central question that is most difficult for the pundants to predict is, "Could Obama's inability to pull away from John McCain really come down to his skin color?"

For the record ... here at My Rural America, we believe rural citizens should make their decisions on facts that benefit rural America and ALL of America's economy, national security and individual freedoms. Oh yes!! ... and add health care and educational opportunity to that list, too.

But the question that is asked in, "What Small Town America is Saying About Obama" is whether this election is only going to be about race. The story, written by Dan Hoyle for Salon.com, is a complicated one and we urge you to read it. Overall, the way Hoyle describes the dilemna is,

"Beyond Obama's race, what I found was a more complicated set of concerns -- whether accurately informed or not -- about his religious faith, values and cultural and educational background. That is, many of these white rural voters expressed a discomfort that may have more to do with unfamiliarity about the type of person Barack Obama is, rather than with direct concerns about his race." Read more here.

Health Benefits Inspire a Rush to the Altar, or to Divorce Court

Let's just say this very clearly: Access to basic health services should NOT be based upon whether you're married or divorced.

The divorce rate for American marriages is over 50 percent these days, and the problem of how difficult it is for people to access affordable health care is making things worse. Kevin Sack wrote the story "Health Benefits Inspire a Rush to the Altar, or to Divorce Court" for the New York Times. Read it here.

Overall, it's a pretty sad state of affairs that getting good health care depends on whether you've got a spouse that has it, or for that matter, that you have to divorce your spouse in order to be poor enough to get assistance with your medical bills. This said, it brings us to some key differences regarding what the two leading presidential candidates (presumptive nominees) have to say about health care. We credit National Journal -- not the campaigns, for these differences, noting that National Journal frames the key difference as "over the scope of government involvement in America's health care system."

To put this another way, Senator McCain's plan depends primarily on tax incentives to individuals, while Senator Obama's plan pays for his proposed program by allowing President Bush's tax breaks to expire for people who earn over $250,000.

There are differences in their voting records, including:

• State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
  
• McCain voted NO; Obama voted YES .. for reauthorization and expansion in 2007
  
• Stem Cell Research
• Obama SPONSORED 2006-07 legislation -- VETOED by President Bush & OPPOSED by McCain -- that would have expanded federal funding of embryonic-stem-cell research
  

National Journal lists SEIU, the American Hospital Association, Families USA and America's Health Insurance Plan as key supporters of Obama. National Journal does not list any organizations as advocates for McCain.

SEIU made its endorsement of Obama based upon his work in support of universal coverage, with employers, individuals and government sharing the financial burdon.

Bush pastor: "James Dobson Does Not Speak for Me"

CBS News reports: President Bush's own pastor -- Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell who introduced Mr. Bush at the Republican National Convention in 2000 and also married Bush daughter Jenna a few weeks ago at the Bush family ranch -- has disavowed long time conservative evangelical religous leader James Dobson.

Rev. Caldwell's announcement comes in the form of a new website: jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com

Caldwell dials in for Senator Obama's weekly Friday morning prayer call (hosted by the Obama campaign) but is not an official surrogate for the campaign. Rev. Caldwell heads the 14,000 member Windsor Village United Methodist Church in Houston, Texas. For more on this story, click here.

Anderson Cooper at CNN also reports additional detail in his AC360 degrees column. Meanwhile, Senator Obama has reacted to Dobson's distortions, saying evangelical leader James Dobson "was making stuff up' when Dobson accused Obama of distorting the Bible.

Poll: Rural Voters Not Reliably Republican in 2008

The Center for Rural Strategies, a Kentucky-based rural think tank lead by Dee Davis, has partnered with Greenberg-Quinlan Research and Greener-Hook Research to poll rural voters on how the presidential candidates are doing. The result showed Clinton and McCain tied, with each getting 46% in the poll. Obama did less well, running nine points behind McCain.

However, Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, GA, says "This poll is more good news than bad news for Obama, because he's only losing rural voters by nine points. ... He's pretty well-positioned to do very well in these swing states."

NPR reports that the survey took place the week of May 13-15 with 682 phone call to citizens in non-metropolitan counties in 13 "battleground" states (New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada).

54% of those surveyed agreed with the statement: John McCain has served his country honorably but he does not seem to understand my economic problems.

Pragmatic Politics -- Rural Voters to Play Key Role in November

The Republicans long ago wrapped up their decision making as to who would be their nominee, so of course, by now we all know that John McCain -- U.S. Senator, war veteran, age 73, from Arizona -- will get the nod.

Now, Democrats are very close to confirming their nominee, too. Today's NY Times which previously endorsed Hillary Clinton, gave front page, above the fold coverage to Barack Obama -- U.S. Senator, raised by a single parent, President of Harvard Law Review, community organizer, age 47, from Illinois -- who has all but wrapped up the nomination. Read the story at The Long Run: Pragmatic Politics, Forged on the South Side.

The New York Times also identified key electoral battleground states as follows:

• McCain targets – Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
• Obama targets – Iowa, Minnesota, Washington, Wisconsin and Virginia.
• Hispanic voters key to both – Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico
• Other states recognized as competitive – Oregon
• (and not mentioned by the NY TIMES, but states still possible to be competitive races – Arizona, Missouri and North Carolina)

NOTE HERE -- Rural voters will play a key roll in 12 out of 16 of these states (see underline), all of which have significant rural populations – average 28.7 percent. These states have a total 107 electoral votes in which rural votes can be expected to significantly impact each statewide victory. Readers can expect this blog over the next month to take a serious look at both candidates' records, comparing how McCain and Obama policies would impact rural citizens in their every day life.

"Bitter" vs. "Roses"

Several days ago, we noted the controversy where Obama used the word "bitter" to describe some of the disappointment ... and anger ... in rural America today. We wrote, "... a lot of rural folks have lost their dreams in these last 25-30 years ... suffering through the "farm crisis of the 1980’s" and communities losing plant after plant of good union jobs moving overseas."

My Rural America has joined a new coalition lead by Al Cross (writer of The Rural Blog and Director of the Institute for Rural Journalism and Communications), which calls for a presidential forum or debate about the issues facing rural America. Cross sites the challenges of No Child Left Behind, the still-undone Farm Bill and environmental issues in his request to the presidential candidates. Certainly, there is much more to talk about, including:

• Re: Jobs Lost. Have you ever noticed that when the Department of Labor releases their figures on jobs lost, they never even count the jobs lost from the farms of America ... only "off farm" jobs get counted.
• Re: Soldiers Lost ... in the war in Afghanistan and the occupation in Iraq. According to the University of New Hampshire's Carsey Institute, our brave men and women soldiers who come from the small towns and country roads across America have a 60% higher death rate higher death rate than do the soldiers who come from urban America. For many of our rural kids, joining the military is the only way they can get to college. For other rural kids, serving in the National Guard and getting that extra pay is the "extra income" that keeps them above the poverty level.
• Re: Health Insurance Lost. 6% more of our rural kids get their health care from SCHIP -- State Children's Health Insurance Program -- than do urban kids, yet enough proudly conservative rural members of Congress voted no on the need to expand this great program so that more of our kids nationwide could take advantage of it.
• Re: Education Funding Lost. Rural schools serve 40% of our nation's students but receive only 22 percent of federal education funding.
  

Combine these issues and more with rural America's shrinking voice in Congress caused by the emptying out of rural America and what you get is forgotten. In my home state of Iowa, our "shrinking voice" has meant Iowa is down to five U.S. representatives. That's down from 11 in 1930. Next to come is 2012 when we can expect to have only four Members representing us.

Rob Rose, reporter for the Meadville Tribune in Indiana, writes, "Bitter is as Bitter Does", as he adds his voice to the growing call for a rural presidential forum:

ROSE -- "The presidential primary votes of Hoosiers are, for the first time in nearly a half-century, meaningful. Obama’s remarks give us an opportunity to back two national politicians into corners and keep them there until they give us real answers to real problems — and we should."

We agree. Everything is NOT coming up roses in rural America and it's high time the presidential candidates started talking in more detail. Obama started the conversation. Clinton criticized. Now let's put some meat on the bones of this discussion.

Not Everything is Coming Up Roses in Rural America

By now, everyone who has had their TV on has heard some of the "back & forth" between Hillary and Obama about how she thinks that he was demeaning in his description of rural voters. It made me think about the time in 1996 when the country was back to work and interest rates were on their way down. Then, someone asked me why was it that middle class voters weren't feeling secure? "Afterall, they are back to work," said my friend.

My answer then was that even though people were back to work, they hadn't paid off their credit cards or replenished their savings back into the bank, so they were still behind. In some cases, what "back to work" meant was that they were employed, not that they were employed in as good of jobs as they had when they were laid off during the Bush and Reagan years.

Now, those good jobs are still gone. It's a long time.

I think about where we are now -- 12 years later, good jobs gone, unemployment rising, shaky stock market, unbelievably high gasoline prices, kids in rural areas signing up to go to war with the hope that their gamble allows them to come home safe and go to college. And I think about some of my friends ... aging prematurely, working too hard ... working just to make ends meet .

It's true that "bitter" is kind of a tough word, so maybe better words to have used would have been "tired" or "worn out" ... "dreams gone". Thinking realistically, a lot of rural folks have lost their dream in these last 25-30 years ... suffering through the "farm crisis of the 1980's" and communities losing plant after plant of good union jobs moving overseas. And now, we've also got another mortgage lending crisis on our hands, too, so -- no, everything isn't coming up roses in rural America and from our view point, it's a good thing when political leaders start recognizing it.

Read "Clinton" and also "Obama" to see for yourself how the story continues.

Edwards Praises Clinton and Obama

It seems a lot of people have been wondering, but there still is no answer. See story: "Edwards Praises both Clinton, Obama" from Huffington Post.

Bill Richardson's Endorsement -- Loyalty to My Country

We shared the news a few days ago, but this Washington Post story about why Governor Richardson endorsed Senator Obama tells the story more eloquently and with much additional truth. It's particularly worth reading because of how Mr. Richardson came to his decision. Click here for the full story.

"Immigration Issues End a Grower's Season"

Today's New York Times features a story about the difficulties of finding workers who can pick 10,000 tomatoes a day. For Pennsylvania farmer Keith Eckel, these challenges have put him out of business. He handled it for 35 years -- proper documents, migrant worker forms, Labor Department forms, and agricultural visa privilege forms, but this year all the right recruitment efforts and the proper forms have failed. Eckel's labor contractor has explained that workers are scared and afraid to travel. Even in the case of people with all the right forms, some are concerned that America and its ever-increasing documentation requirements are simply too difficult, too unwelcoming. For journalist Paul Vitello's full story, click here. Mr. Eckel has not made the decision as to whether he will plant next year.

All three presidential candidates -- Clinton, Obama & McCain, favor a path to legalization for illegal immigrants that includes learning English and paying fines. Both Obama and Clinton would also toughen penalties for illegal immigrants. All three have voted for measures which would secure U.S. borders.

Mike Huckabee -- Quote of the Week

We've found it unfortunate that some of the coverage of this year's presidential race has been framed in "race and gender" issues; however, Sojourners featured Mike Huckabee's comment as "quote of the week" regarding Rev. Wright and we found it valuable.

Mike Huckabee: "As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say, "That's a terrible statement," I grew up in a very segregated South, and I think that you have to cut some slack. And I'm going to be probably the only conservative in America who's going to say something like this, but I'm just telling you: We've got to cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told, "You have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can't sit out there with everyone else. There's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office. Here's where you sit on the bus." And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had ... more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me. "

Which Will We Choose -- Wall Street vs. Main Street -- in the Fight to Fix the Home Ownership/Mortgage Lending Crisis?

It was in the 1980's that many of us who lived on farms in rural communities either lost our land or saw our friends lose theirs. I remember it well because it was then that I moved away from the farm that I loved.

Yesterday, as I watched presidential candidate John McCain speak about his solution for home owners affected by the mortgage lending crisis, it all came back -- an echo of the past about the haunting emotional pain that we felt all across rural America, losing the land we loved, moving away, wondering if we'd ever be financially secure again. I remembered the increase in the divorce rate, the child custody battles, as well as how some turned to increased drug and alcohol abuse as homes and farms were lost.

I asked myself, "Is the mortgage crisis bringing on the same kinds of anxiety and heartbreak that the Farm Crisis did in the 1980's?" And I almost hate to admit it but yes, it seems so as I thought back -- George H. W. Bush was president at the end of this ugly period; he tried to cure our ailing economy by urging us all to go out and buy a couple of pairs of new socks. What I can't remember ... was that before or after he discovered that grocery stores had machines in them (glory be!) that could actually read the price labels. I mean Who Knew?

But now, the more things change, the more they stay the same. We're on the verge of ending another failed Presidency and hopefully, voters will make a wiser choice for President this year, than we did either time we chose a Bush for president.

That choice -- who to vote for President -- is one that eventually we will need to add to our growing list of speeches and program proposals that matter, or don't ... asking ourselves: Are we for or against?

Yesterday -- one year after the home ownership crisis began, we listened carefully as McCain spoke about our fragile middle class economy and what he thought was most important about responding to the crisis. I wondered, "Is he going to choose Wall Street or Main Street?"

McCain emphasized, "A sustained period of rising home prices made many home lenders complacent, giving them a false sense of security and causing them to lower their lending standards ... Lenders ended up violating the basic rule of banking: don't lend people money who can't pay it back."

True. Some people may have purchased homes they couldn't afford and true, we shouldn't "lend people money who can't pay it back" but many of the people who bought homes purchased in good faith. They paid their loans on time.

We have to ask? How is it that McCain blames the people who bought the houses, rather than the predatory lending system that allowed some mortgage brokers to go for the big bucks? 'Looking for excuses to take houses back, they now rush to take the homes back, later to resell and claim additional profit.

Why -- if lenders made mistakes as McCain said, would he want to ease the regulations on lenders?

Why -- didn't McCain offer policies that would aid the families who are hurt by lender mistakes?

Why -- would McCain reward the lenders for their mistakes? ... which he did.

What would have made sense -- common sense -- would have been to propose using the FHA home loan program, offering counseling for the families, loan restructuring and tax breaks -- all ways that offer immediate help to the families, while also penalizing the lenders who over-stepped. Some of these solutions are already being offered in Congress. See Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and the two other presidential candidates -- Obama and Clinton.

Today -- Governor Richardson Endorses Obama

Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico has endorsed Barack Obama for President.

Richardson's remarks in part are, "Today I am endorsing Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States because I believe he is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime leader that can bring our nation together and restore America’s moral leadership in the world. As a Presidential candidate, I know full well Senator Obama's unique ability to inspire the American people to confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad in a spirit of bipartisanship and reconciliation.”

Richardson is our nation's only Hispanic governor and served as both Secretary of the Department of Energy and Ambassador to the United Nations under President Bill Clinton. Richardson's extensive experience and record of accomplishment in foreign affairs has earned him five nominations for the Nobel Prize.

Major news reactions include the following stories:

Baltimore Sun: "Bill Richardson joins Obama for endorsement"

CNN: "Richardson Endorses Obama ... "He brings out the best in us".

New York Times: "Is Obama a Plan B for Richardson voters?".

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports that a key Clinton Campaign aide has dismissed the endorsement, calling it "insignificant."

The Match Up -- Obama & Hillary vs. McCain

SurveyUSA: Hillary And Obama Win Electoral College In Distinct Ways

By Eric Kleefeld - March 6, 2008, 1:48PM

SurveyUSA has a new set of polls out, testing Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in all 50 states. The bottom line: Both candidates would narrowly win the Electoral College, but in very different ways.

Obama vs. McCain - Obama Would Win 280 to 258

Clinton vs. McCain: Clinton Would Win 278 to 260

Be sure to click the new set of polls to see the maps, too.

Clinton, Obama, McCain

Tuesday's results made a clear path for Senator McCain to be nominated as the Republican candidate for President. Meanwhile, Governor Huckabee closed the door on his campaign, saying that he didn't think he would be asked to join McCain on the ticket.

What's more interesting to us is the race between Senators Clinton and Obama for the Democratic nomination. Obama's winning streak -- 14 states in a row, ended last night with Hillary claimed victory for three states against Obama's singular win. Certainly, the news media, with Hillary almost gleeful, made much of her wins in Ohio, Rhode Island and yes ... even the very narrow win in Texas. What was more interesting to us was what happened in the delegate count since the victories for both candidates were actually very tight.

Overall, the Wall Street Journal reports that before Tuesday, Obama lead with 1,386-1,276 lead over Clinton, or a 110 delegate advantage, according to the Associated Press. With all but nine of the 370 delegates at stake Tuesday awarded by mid-afternoon today, Obama still led 1,562-1,461 — with a 101-delegate advantage. The full story is available at "Obama Maintains His Delegate Lead."

The more serious question about the contest between Obama and Hillary was asked today by Newsweek: "A Game of Survivor ... Hillary takes Texas and Ohio, setting back Obama and staying alive. But with McCain securing the Republican nomination, will the continuing battle between the two Democrats cost them the White House?"

That question -- will the continuing battle cost Democrats the White House? -- is definitely one that could keep us up nights. For 2008, Democrats losing would mean a McCain victory. His commitment for the U.S. to stay in Iraq for "100 years", his commitment to privatize Social Security, and last but not least, his commitment to make the tax cuts permanent for the richest people in this country is a prescription for disaster.