Most Americans support a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Most American Jews support this.
Most American Muslims and most Palestinian-Americans support it.
Most Americans of all backgrounds and all faiths support it.  Even President Bush claims that this is his ``vision.''

So why is it that over the years, our government has not done more to advance this vision?  One of the big reasons is that our elected officials just don't hear us.  They hear from a vocal minority that has a different view.

Now there is a new political lobby, J Street, that aims to give a voice to the majority:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/04/14/AR2008041402647. html?nav=rss_politics

If you are pro-Israel and pro-peace, J Street may be the address for you.

If you want to contribute to progressive political candidates, and you want to make sure that your money goes to candidates who are constructive voices for a sensible two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, then head over to J Street:

http://jstreet.org/

I think we can do more good there than by rehashing the Presidential campaign.

       - Edward Witten

The leading Democratic Presidential candidates are raising vast amounts of money.  It is great that they attract so much enthusiasm, but wouldn't it be even better if some of that money could be used in the General Election next year?

My proposal is that we should pressure all of the Presidential candidates to transfer 10% of the money they raise in the next six months to the national Democratic Party.  That way, if $150 million (say) is going to be raised between now and the Iowa caucuses -- and I think the figure isn't an exaggeration -- the candidates could use $135 million to slug it out for our Presidential nomination.  The other $15 million could be used to support underfunded down-ballot candidates in the 2008 election.

Could the netroots really pressure the candidates to contribute 10% of their funds to support the party?  Maybe, if we try.  It might be one of the best things we could do in 2007.  If it is too late this time, we should really plan it from the beginning next time.

Here is the headline on MSNBC.com:

Environmentalist cuts deal in Abramoff probe
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19094271/

The article reports that Italia Federici, who ``allegedly acted as liaison between the deputy secretary of the Interior [Steven Giles, with whom she was also linked personally] and disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff,'' has pleaded guilty in the Abramoff case, as has Giles.

According to the article, Federici ``runs a Republican advocacy group,'' namely the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy.  A quick Wikipedia search reveals that this group has been described as a ``green scam'' by the Natural Resources Defense Council, ``a group sponsored by mining, chemical and chlorine industries.''

Apparently, that is enough to make MSNBC.com call her an ``environmentalist.''  Maybe they meant to write ``anti-environmentalist.''

Lately, Evan Bayh and others have been pushing a plan to establish direct popular election of the President, de facto, by having states with a majority of the electoral votes commit themselves to award their electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes nationally.   The idea is to try to abolish the electoral college without the need for a constitutional amendment.  A constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college is a near-impossible goal, as it would require the approval of Senators and state legislators who represent the very small states that are over-represented in the electoral college.  The current push for abolishing the electoral college de facto would require only the support of state legislatures in states with a majority of the electoral votes.

Today, David S. Broder has a column criticizing Bayh's plan.  I suppose that his column represents what will be establishment thinking criticizing this plan, so let us take a look at what he says.

A lot of things went wrong in the 2000 election in Florida, some by accident and some on purpose.  A lot of it is that different voting systems were in use in different counties.  In many Democratic-leaning counties, systems were in use that made it easier for voters to make mistakes and have their votes not count.

Ironically, the Supreme Court essentially ordered the Florida recount to stop on the grounds that it was unfair to have different procedures in different counties.  But they made this ruling only in what concerned the recount.  They never said that it was unfair to begin with to have different voting equipment in different counties.

That being so, the Supreme Court ruling seemed strange, at best.  But instead of just complaining about hypocrisy, I think that Democrats would do better to sue.  After the 2000 election, we should have sued all over the country in every state that uses different voting equipment in different areas or counties.  Have we had such lawsuits?  Maybe, but I haven't read about them.  Some courts would have ruled in our favor, and the Supreme Court would have had to deal with the issue. Whatever they would have decided, it would be to our benefit to have this issue in the courts.

Now, let us fast forward to the 2006 election in Florida-13.

There are an even number of votes in the Electoral College (538).
In case of a tie, the President is selected by the House of Representatives, with an unusual procedure: each state delegation has one vote, regardless of the size of the state.  The vote of a state goes to the candidate who has the support of the most representatives from that state.  (States in which the delegation is tied and cannot reach agreement are not able to vote. To become President, one needs the support of a majority of the states.  The Constitution gives no guidance about what happens if no one is able to get a majority.)

Until now, the Republicans were a shoo-in to win the Presidency in case of a tie in the Electoral College.  Not any more.  As of the new Congress, the Democrats control the majority of 26 delegations;
3 are tied; and the Republicans control 21.  (One or two pending
recounts might shift these numbers slightly in our favor; for example, if Gary Trauner ends up winning the Wyoming at-large seat, this would mean that Democrats would control the one-person
Wyoming delegation.)  

We are always saying that Democrats need to learn to ``frame'' things as the Republicans do.  One of the grossly misleading ``frames'' used by the Republicans is to call the estate tax on inherited wealth, originally promoted by Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, the ``death tax.''

Ed Kilgore at www.newdonkey.com suggests that we reply in kind by calling the inheritance tax the ``billionaire's tax.''  I think it is a good idea.
(I don't have any idea if it is new -- maybe it has been proposed in these pages before!)  It is a ``frame'' that could have an impact if we promote it and stick to it.  

Moreover, I think this is an opportunity specifically for the blogosphere to make a difference.  Let us take the lead in calling the estate tax what it mostly is -- a ``billionaire's tax.''   Our representatives will follow.

``Death tax'' is the kind of dumb thing the Republicans are always coming up with which unfortunately has an impact.  Let's answer.

One of the things Democrats most need in a
Presidential candidate is someone who has
faced Republicans -- someone who is experienced
at fighting back against the kind of stuff they
use.

One of the problems with two of our recent
Presidential candidates -- Dukakis and Kerry --
is that they just did not have a lot of experience
in running against Republicans.  Massachusetts is
too heavily Democratic.  Yes, Kerry did have one tough race against Republican William Weld, but
Weld was a different kind of animal from the national Republicans, and in heavily Democratic
Massachusetts, Kerry was able to beat him by
reminding people that Weld was a Republican in
many of his views. This is not an approach that
works nationally, unfortunately.

That is the problem with the New Hampshire primary
-- it tends to give us candidates who are not
experienced in running against Republicans. I don't personally think the Iowa caucuses are equally problematic, though they are a strange
and only semidemocratic institution.

Let us compare Kerry and Dukakis to a couple of other recent candidates.  Bill Clinton is from
Arkansas.  After running for Governor of Arkansas
about six times, Clinton was an expert on running
against Republicans, and on the cultural issues that have often given Democrats trouble.
What about Howard Dean?  Yes, there are Republicans in Vermont, but I think Dean's experience was still a little limited -- unlike Clinton, he hadn't had to bridge the cultural
divide to get elected Governor in his state.  And
he hadn't had -- as Clinton did -- to learn the
art of getting black voters enthusiastic without losing white votes.

Most southern states have become out of
reach for Democrats -- even if we nominate
a southern candidate.  But who knows, maybe
if we had nominated Bob Graham in this last
election, he would have carried Florida.  That
would have made all the difference.  Certainly
Graham, though not the first choice of a lot of
Democrats, is someone who spoke effectively (and
critically) about Iraq, and knows what it is
to run against Republicans.

I think that is the real advantage for Democrats
of a southern or other red state candidate.
It is not that such a candidate can carry the south, but that such a candidate is more likely
to have developed the skills needed to win
nationally.  Of course, there can be exceptions
- maybe someone in NY or Illinois (for example)
has the skills we need.