Her intro: thank you for what you’re doing. You are the counterweight to the right-wing noise machine. You give a lot of support to the progressive agenda of the Democratic party. Wish we had you 15 years ago — there’s been a real imbalance in the political world in our country. But we are righting — or “lefting” — that imbalance. We are putting together a network that is beginning to match what has for years been the other side’s advance.
When I made that remark about the VRWC, I wasn’t kidding! Except that it’s not a conspiracy — it’s right out there for everyone to see. Fact is, they were better prepared. I appreciate the individual and collective effort that you all are putting into being the front line of the progressive movement.
Second thing is that you keep us on our toes, force us to be sharp and defend our positions. I actually read blogs, and sometimes I say “that’s a really good point,” and I try to think how I can work it into what I’m doing.
Third: our lives have changed, so our politics have to change. What if we had had the blogosphere in 93-94 when I was working on health care? We made mistakes too, but it would have helped counteract the money from the other side.
Cubs, not Sox. [mix of applause and boos]
OK, time for Q&A.
1st Q: from National Education Ass’n person. No Child Left Behind: what will you do about the growing public backlash around NCLB?
A: Appreciate the question. Everyone talks about education, but relatively few questions specifically about NCLB. We have to admit that NCLB became an unfair unfunded mandate, because new expectations and rules were imposed on schools without promised resources — a breach of the bargain. Second, Bush Dept. of Education has been less than understanding, or even competent, on enforcing NCLB. So even the good parts of the law have been rendered irrational by DOE. Third, everybody agrees with principle of accountability. Here’s what we need to do. 1: need a growth model of accountability. Need to track individual students, not the system overall. Testing and then measuring whole schools not good enough. 2: have to move toward national standards for testing. Bush administration has done a “wink wink” and has dropped standards. We should move toward NAPE. 3: federal gov’t has to step up to the plate on resources. No unfunded mandates. 4: reading and math are important, but so are history, science, arts, etc. Too many schools are depriving kids of a broad curriculum, and not all kids learn the same way. 5: best way to close the achievement gap is pre-K education, especially focused on kids from disadvantaged backgrounds. Will try to get some of that money out of NCLB. Also, we pay too little attention to high school. [lost the rest of her answer, sorry]
Next Q: when can we expect the military commissions act to be rescinded, and Guantanamo to be closed?
A: First, it’s an unconstitutional denial of habeas corpus. We’re going to try to reinstate habeas corpus and reform the procedures. Trying to get a bipartisan coalition that will give us the votes we need — need 60 votes in the Senate. On Guantanamo: we must close it, and I believe that the political pressure to do it is increasing.
Next Q: Jeralyn Merritt from TalkLeft. Surprised that Senate had passed the FISA bill that will allow more eavesdroping. I know you voted against — thank you. Questions: what kinds of warrantless eavesdropping would you permit, and why? And how will your AG be different from Gonzales?
A: Taking the second question first [much laughter]. It would be a breath of fresh air to have an AG who believes in the rule of law. There are lots of qualified Republican lawyers available for judges and DoJ jobs, and he’s gone with cronies and movement conservatives. Bush has conducted a dangerous experiment in extremism, and has turned away from separation of powers. WH backing Gonzales despite everything that has come out speaks volumes about their contempt for the rule of law. Gonzales should be removed, or he should resign. Ongoing investigations will continue. Rule of law, not Rule of Bush.
I voted for a Democratic alternative last night (on FISA). The debate will go on — the one that passed has a sunset. One of the problems is that we really don’t have a clear understanding of what happens on these programs.
next Q: First, thanks for going on record saying you’d repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Would you also repeal: DOMA, Telecom bill of 1996, NAFTA, and Welfare Reform. [all Clinton era questions]
A: On record against DADT since 1999. Best that could be gotten in the circumstances at the time, but it has been not implemented appropriately, resulting in unwarranted discharges that has harmed our national security. I hope to lead the effort to repeal it. DOMA: served an important purpose — I was an architect of the strategy against the marriage amendment to the Constitution. DOMA was a bright line allowing us to hold back the votes building up in favor of the amendment. I believe marriage should be left to the states; I support civil unions will full equality. DOMA appropriately put responsibility in the states. Repeal part 3, which stands in the way of full extension of federal benefits, and I support that. Telecom of 1996: ask Al Gore. I’m not an expert on that. Need a hard look. NAFTA: I have said that it didn’t realize the benefits that were promised. We need generally smarter trade agreements with not only labor and environmental standards, but also an ongoing evaluation of the impact of the agreements. I have sponsored legislation to require that. We do have to find ways to work with our neighbors in the hemisphere, including stimulating job creation to the south. Welfare reform: positive consequences of reform outweigh the negative. Regret is that over the last 6-1/2 years, the work we did to protect education benefits etc. have been subject of Bush administration attacks. These programs have been severely cut back, and I will reverse that. Big fight right now on SCHIP, Medicaid. We must stand against Bush veto, and eventually we need to get to universal health care.
Next Q: Transit system in Europe is really good. I’d like to know if you have a vision for updating mass transit infrastructure.
A: great question. I’ve been advocating for long-term funding to repair, maintain, and build infrastructure. Esp. in Northeast and midwest, we’re benefiting from our grandparents’ investments in infrastructure. We have to improve it. Infrastructure is not only physical, but virtual. In addition to roads etc., must have universal broadband. My first bill was to expand broadband in underserved areas in NY. In 2000, we were leading the world in broadband; now we’re #25. That’s an economic and a security issue. Need to look at other countries — EU has used 50 year bonding authority. Must do it in a hurry, because every year we’ll have more problems [e.g. Minnesota bridge], and more missed opportunities. Mass transit must be a big priority. We cannot sustain the congestion, lost productivity that comes from traffic problems. We are losing money and time, wasting oil, contributing to global warming. Need a federal-state-local partnership. And need to encourage and incentivize people to use it — a public education and investment effort.
[Winding up now:] Every election is about the future, and what kind of change we want for our country. I’ve been fighting for change my entire life. I’m proud of my record of public service.
But what really matters in this election is how much power and energy we have from citizens across America. We cannot afford to lose — cannot afford to have four or eight more years of policies that ignore the Constitution, ignore the future, mortgage our children’s future. I am incredibly confident and optimistic, though realistic, about our challenges. I can’t do it without your help. I love a vigorous debate and a great exchange of ideas. That’s what primaries are for, and that’s what the blogosphere is for. I invite you to be partners with the campaign, even if you don’t support me — I want to hear from you. If we just talk to ourselves, we sound really smart. We have to figure out how to talk to people who don’t agree with us — but who know in their core that we need a new direction for this country.
